Maintenance Increase Lawsuit: Redetermining the Amount of Maintenance in Light of Changing Economic Conditions

A maintenance increase lawsuit makes it possible to reassess previously determined poverty maintenance (yoksulluk nafakası) or child maintenance (iştirak nafakası) in light of changed economic and personal circumstances. For poverty maintenance, Article 176/4 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) is the principal legal basis; for child maintenance, Articles 182, 330 and 331 TMK are the principal legal bases. Inflation, the child’s education and health expenses and the parties’ ability to pay are examined together; there is no automatic percentage increase that applies to all cases. In addition, since the decision of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi) of June 4, 2026, which annulled the phrase “indefinitely” in the provision on poverty maintenance, will enter into force on June 30, 2027, current increase claims should not be confused with the debate over the future duration of maintenance.

What is a maintenance increase lawsuit, and what problem does it solve?

An award of maintenance during the divorce or in subsequent proceedings does not mean that the amount can never be changed for life. A payment that was reasonable on the date maintenance was determined may become inadequate over time because the purchasing power of money has declined, the child has grown, rent and education expenses have risen, or the parties’ income and assets have changed. The subject of a maintenance increase lawsuit is not a retrial of the earlier divorce judgment as a whole but the redetermination of a previously established continuing payment obligation in light of subsequent circumstances.

The aim of an increase claim is not to punish one party or to give the other an economic advantage unrelated to existing living conditions. The legal assessment seeks to strike an equitable balance between the maintenance creditor’s needs that deserve protection and the maintenance obligor’s actual ability to pay. Where a child is concerned, the best interests of the child and the parents’ duty of maintenance are added to this balance. For this reason, it is not correct to reduce poverty maintenance and child maintenance to a single calculation formula.

The fact that the earlier maintenance decision has become final does not remove the binding effect of the judgment for the past period. However, changes that arise later may create a new cause of action for the new period. A concrete comparison of the circumstances on the date of the first decision with those on the date of the new lawsuit is the starting point of a successful legal review.

Why must the types of maintenance be distinguished from one another?

Poverty maintenance

Poverty maintenance is the maintenance that a party who will fall into poverty because of the divorce, and who is not more seriously at fault than the other spouse, may claim in proportion to the other party’s financial means (Article 175 TMK). Where poverty maintenance is set as periodic income (irat), that is, as a periodic payment, it may be increased or reduced on account of a change in the parties’ financial circumstances or where equity so requires (Article 176/4 TMK). The conditions for becoming entitled to maintenance in the first place and the conditions for increasing maintenance already awarded are separate matters.

Child maintenance

Child maintenance is the contribution, in proportion to their means, of the parent who has not been granted custody to the child’s care and education expenses (Article 182/2 TMK). The amount is determined by taking into account the child’s needs, the parents’ living conditions and ability to pay, and any income of the child (Article 330 TMK). If circumstances change, the judge may, upon request, redetermine the amount or remove it (Article 331 TMK). The source of child maintenance is not assistance to a former spouse but the parents’ continuing duty of maintenance toward the child.

Difference from interim maintenance and support maintenance

While divorce proceedings are pending, interim maintenance (tedbir nafakası) may be awarded as a provisional measure under Article 169 TMK. Different interim maintenance claims may also exist in cases of living apart or other statutory situations. Changing provisional maintenance in a pending case and filing an independent increase lawsuit after the divorce judgment has become final are not the same procedural step. Support maintenance (yardım nafakası), on the other hand, arises under Articles 364 et seq. TMK between family members who would fall into poverty if they were not supported; this institution is not identical to poverty maintenance for a spouse or child maintenance for a child either.

The main statutory bases for a maintenance increase

Article 176/4 TMK makes an increase in poverty maintenance paid as periodic income dependent on a change in the parties’ financial circumstances or on equity so requiring. It is important that these two grounds are set out as alternatives in the text of the law: an increase claim cannot be rejected out of hand merely because there is no extraordinary, documented salary rise. At the same time, the equity ground does not mean that the investigation of the parties’ actual needs and ability to pay can be dispensed with.

Articles 330 and 331 TMK establish a separate system of assessment for child maintenance. The child’s stage of development, education and health needs, and the parents’ living conditions and economic means are taken into account together. The child’s needs also change qualitatively as the child moves from preschool to primary school, to secondary education and to later stages.

Articles 176/5 and 330/3 TMK allow, upon request, a ruling on how the amount of maintenance will be determined in future years. Article 177 TMK makes the court of the maintenance creditor’s domicile competent in maintenance lawsuits filed after the divorce. How the general rule of jurisdiction and this special provision apply together is explained separately below. Article 4 of Law No. 4787, in turn, is the basis for these disputes being heard, as a rule, by the family court.

How are inflation, the consumer price index and the producer price index reflected in a maintenance increase?

The same nominal amount of maintenance does not represent the same purchasing power at different dates. Increases in rent, food, energy, transport, health and education spending may reduce the real economic contribution of the maintenance awarded. The court’s examination should not consist merely of converting the original maintenance amount into today’s money; it should assess the economic balance established by the earlier decision and the parties’ present situation.

The Consumer Price Index (TÜFE) and the Domestic Producer Price Index (Yİ-ÜFE) published by the Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK) are useful indicators for understanding price changes. However, they do not measure precisely all of an individual’s expenses or the actual income of the maintenance obligor. When examining the rate to be applied, it should be investigated whether the earlier judgment contains an increase clause, which index and which period it provides for, the relevant date range, and whether earlier increases were actually applied.

The decision of the Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 2. Hukuk Dairesi) dated June 28, 2021, E.2021/4645, K.2021/5308, reversed a dismissal, even in a poverty maintenance dispute in which no extraordinary economic change had been proven, on the ground that the earlier balance had to be preserved by taking the producer price index into account. This does not mean that in all increase lawsuits the new amount claimed is automatically limited to the producer price index rate. Different financial circumstances, health problems, the child’s rising education expenses or significant changes in the ability to pay may require the specific amount to be determined separately.

Moreover, an annual index update and the court’s determination of a new and higher base amount of maintenance following a change in circumstances are different operations. Mixing them in the same petition may cause uncertainty in enforcement regarding the amount in dispute and the start of the increase.

How many years must pass since maintenance was set?

Articles 176/4 and 331 TMK do not provide for any general one-year, two-year or five-year waiting requirement before an increase lawsuit can be filed. The criterion is that the new circumstances on which the increase claim is based have arisen and are proven. In a lawsuit filed shortly after the earlier decision, merely repeating the same facts may not be sufficient; on the other hand, an unexpected health need of the child or a substantial change in income may also arise within a short time.

A long lapse of time, by contrast, does not by itself ensure entitlement, but it is a significant fact as regards the purchasing power of money, changes in age and stage of development, and rent and education expenses. Each new increase lawsuit must be assessed in light of the circumstances on the filing date.

Important distinction between time periods: The one-year statute of limitations provided for in Article 178 TMK for certain rights of action arising from the end of the marriage by divorce must not be confused with the right to seek a later increase in maintenance already awarded. A first-time claim for poverty maintenance, whether it was previously waived definitively, and the nature of the cause of action require separate legal examination.

How are the child’s needs determined when increasing child maintenance?

The child’s care expenses do not consist solely of minimum spending on food and clothing. Housing, school and school transport, books and stationery, educational equipment, health and necessary treatment, age-appropriate sports or social activities, transport and developmental expenses gain importance depending on the circumstances of the specific case. However, each expense should be considered together with the child’s actual needs, living conditions and the financial means of the mother and father; an automatic obligation should not be established on the basis of undocumented or unlimited assumptions.

Maintenance may be redetermined when the stage of education changes

Maintenance set during the preschool period may lose its real financial value when the child moves to a new level of education. For expenses such as private school, school transport, exam preparation, foreign languages or private tutoring, it is examined not only whether the expense has been incurred but also how the choice relates to the child’s educational history, the parties’ earlier understanding, their living circumstances and ability to pay. It cannot be accepted that private school expenses will in every case be borne without limit by the other parent; equally, the child’s established educational routine and concrete interests cannot be disregarded.

Risk of school fees and maintenance being counted twice for the same items

In its decisions dated March 4, 2026, E.2025/10739, K.2026/2494 and dated June 15, 2026, E.2025/8708, K.2026/6569, the Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber examined in detail the relationship between the school, insurance and education expenses in uncontested divorce protocols and child maintenance. The decisions emphasized that education expenses should be treated as part of the duty to maintain the child, and that, instead of vague obligations that cannot be enforced separately, a clarified maintenance ruling covering those expenses should be established.

The practical consequence is as follows: if the protocol provides that one parent will pay the school fees and also pay child maintenance, the court should examine together the existing ruling, how payments have been made in practice, which expense has already been covered, and the scope of the new claim. Otherwise, the same expense may be counted under two separate items, or a vague school fee provision may give rise to new enforcement disputes.

Which circumstances are examined when increasing poverty maintenance?

In poverty maintenance, the court assesses the maintenance creditor’s current sources of income, housing and essential living expenses, capacity to work, state of health, any income from assets, and the maintenance obligor’s ability to pay. The fact that the decision can no longer sustain the financial balance of years ago may, on grounds of equity, justify an increase. On the other hand, an increase is not a means of enriching the creditor or punishing the obligor.

The creditor’s taking up paid employment, receiving a retirement pension or acquiring assets does not in every case mean that the poverty has ended. Whether the income is regular and sufficient, the essential expenses and the earlier economic circumstances are examined together. Similarly, the debtor’s remarriage or having another child does not by itself automatically reduce the existing maintenance; where necessary, these circumstances are included in the concrete examination of the overall ability to pay.

Is fault in the divorce retried?

In an increase lawsuit, the starting point is the existence of the earlier maintenance ruling and the change in subsequent facts. The events that led to the divorce and the fault assessed in the first judgment are not retried from the beginning simply because higher maintenance is sought. Nevertheless, the finality of the earlier judgment, the status of the parties, the provisions of the protocol and whether maintenance legally continues should be checked.

How does the 2026 Constitutional Court decision affect poverty maintenance?

By its constitutional review decision dated June 4, 2026, E.2025/156, K.2026/131, the Constitutional Court annulled the phrase “indefinitely” in Article 175/1 TMK. The decision was published in the Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) of September 30, 2026, No. 33386; the entry into force of the annulment was deferred for nine months from its publication. The expected date on which the annulment enters into force is therefore June 30, 2027.

The Constitutional Court considered it necessary to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the poverty maintenance creditor and the fundamental rights of the maintenance obligor, and for facts such as the length of the marriage, age, health, education and the ability to meet one’s own needs to be assessed in a foreseeable manner with regard to the duration of maintenance. The Court stated that lifelong maintenance could also be made legally possible in certain specific situations, but pointed out that the conditions for this must be determined within a statutory framework.

The decision was adopted by majority vote. The three members who dissented did not join the annulment, emphasizing the function of the existing poverty maintenance system for the spouse in need of economic protection, the principles of the social state and de facto equality, and the possibilities of reduction/removal under Article 176 TMK. One member who joined the annulment on different grounds explained that the core issue was, before proportionality between interests, a problem of certainty and foreseeability in the application of the rule. The result adopted by the majority and the constitutional assessments in the dissenting opinions differ, and they cannot be substituted for one another.

This decision has not abolished poverty maintenance entirely, has not annulled child maintenance and has not automatically ended existing maintenance rulings upon publication. The annulled phrase and Article 176/4 TMK, which governs the amount of an increase, are also different rules. Possible effects relating to the duration and termination of maintenance and to future legislation should be assessed separately for the periods before and after June 30, 2027. If new legislation is enacted after publication, this guide should be updated accordingly.

The Constitutional Court’s decision dated March 27, 2025, E.2025/91, K.2025/82, dealt procedurally with another referral concerning the phrase “indefinitely” in Article 175, on the ground that the rule could not be applied in the pending increase/removal lawsuit. This distinction further shows that an initial award of maintenance and disputes over the increase/removal of existing maintenance are different legal subjects.

Why must the real and sustainable level of income be investigated?

The maintenance obligor’s ability to pay cannot be inferred solely from the salary on the payroll, a brief entry in the social and economic status investigation or the parties’ mutual estimates. Tax and Social Security Institution (SGK) records, regular commercial earnings, shareholdings in companies, vehicle and real estate records, rental income and living expenses may be assessed together, insofar as they are lawfully obtained and relevant to the case. Abstract assumptions about the other party’s economic means do not take the place of evidence.

Particularly where a significant gap is claimed between payroll income and the actual economic picture, the court’s assessment should be reasoned and open to review. Treating temporary or extraordinary income as permanent income, confusing assets with liquid income, or automatically adding unproven expense items to the ability to pay is not appropriate.

The Constitutional Court’s İbrahim Acar decision

In its İbrahim Acar, Application No. 2016/3140, November 7, 2019 decision, the Constitutional Court found a violation under Article 17 of the Constitution because, in a maintenance increase lawsuit, maintenance higher than the monthly income the person said they earned had been awarded without investigating that person’s decisive claim concerning their actual income. The significance of the decision is that it shows that the amount of maintenance must be determined not only on the basis of need, but by investigating, with reasons, the obligor’s ability to pay and significant objections. A figure being high in relation to income does not by itself constitute a constitutional violation in every case; what is decisive is insufficient investigation and leaving a claim that affects the outcome unanswered.

Unemployment, illness, a fall in income and new family obligations

The maintenance obligor’s becoming unemployed, suffering a permanent loss of income, incurring serious health expenses or acquiring new statutory maintenance obligations may be relevant to a defense against an increase claim or, where the conditions are met, to a claim for a reduction of maintenance. However, no change is deemed by the court to have occurred merely because it is alleged. The date and permanence of the alleged loss of income, the person’s profession, ability to work and earn income, assets and expense documents should be examined.

On the other hand, if the maintenance creditor’s essential expenses have increased significantly, it should also be discussed in detail whether a temporary fluctuation in the debtor’s income requires the complete rejection of the increase claim. It is important to respond to the claim with supporting evidence, to determine separately the substantive conditions required for removing or reducing poverty maintenance and, if necessary, to examine the route of a properly brought counterclaim/independent lawsuit.

If the uncontested divorce protocol provides for an annual increase, can a new lawsuit be filed?

An uncontested divorce protocol or a court judgment (ilam) may provide that maintenance will be increased every year at a fixed rate or according to a specific index of the Turkish Statistical Institute. Such a provision, to the extent it can be applied, may form the basis for periodic updates without a separate lawsuit. First of all, it should be established how the protocol was incorporated into the court judgment, whether the index is clear, from which period the increase began, and whether the calculation was actually carried out.

The existence of an annual increase clause does not mean that a maintenance increase can never be sought when subsequent circumstances change significantly. However, applying a new rate directly to the old starting amount without calculating the periodic increases that have already taken effect may create a misleading comparison. The court should determine the current amount actually and legally payable on the filing date, and then assess the new amount claimed according to the specific circumstances.

The decision of the Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber dated February 10, 2026, E.2025/5925, K.2026/1465, treated the failure to rule on a requested annual producer price index increase as a ground for reversal. This decision shows the importance of stating clearly in the relief sought a claim for increases in future years.

From what date does an increase lawsuit take effect?

According to the established judicial approach, a ruling increasing maintenance takes effect, as a rule, from the filing date. A person seeking an increase should not assume that they can claim the new increased maintenance retroactively for all past periods before the lawsuit was filed. By contrast, collecting, through enforcement proceedings, old maintenance instalments arising from the earlier judgment that fell due in the past but were not paid is a separate matter.

For the period after the filing date, too, the relief sought in the statement of claim and the effect of valid procedural steps taken during the proceedings are examined. In particular, from which period a claim increased by amendment (ıslah) is to be taken into account must be determined separately in the specific file. In the new decision, the effective start date of the increased maintenance, the start of any increase for future years, the payment date and its relationship with the old ruling should be stated clearly enough not to create uncertainty in enforcement.

Can a child maintenance claim be increased by amendment during the proceedings?

The decision of the Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber dated March 4, 2026, E.2025/10739, K.2026/2494, is of particular importance on this issue. The majority of the Chamber did not adopt the view that the claim in an independent child maintenance lawsuit cannot be increased by way of amendment; it held that the amendment request must be assessed in view of the best interests of the child, changing needs and procedural economy. It also stated that the amounts in the statement of claim should be taken into account for the period before the amendment, and the amounts in the amendment petition for the period after the amendment.

The decision was adopted by majority vote and includes a dissenting opinion. Notably, the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) dated November 7, 2019, E.2018/3-564, K.2019/1150, accepted, in a dispute concerning the increase of poverty maintenance and maintenance (bakım nafakası) for an adult child under Article 328/2 TMK, that the maintenance claim is not divisible in nature and cannot be increased by way of a partial action or amendment. The 2026 majority of the 2nd Civil Chamber, however, reached a different conclusion, relying on the nature of an independent child maintenance lawsuit as specific to the child’s interests. The explicit reference in the Chamber’s dissenting opinion to the 2019 decision of the Civil General Assembly shows that the amendment issue must be assessed by distinguishing between the type of maintenance and the specific scope of the decisions. Without taking this divergence in case law into account, no definitive conclusion can be reached that amendment is possible in every case or prohibited in every case in all maintenance lawsuits.

It therefore cannot be concluded that a statement of claim may deliberately be prepared as insufficient or vague. The amendment rules in Articles 176 et seq. HMK should be examined together with the timing of the procedural step, its notification and the court fees involved. Since poverty maintenance, interim maintenance and child maintenance may have different procedural characteristics, the scope of this decision should not be generalized without limit to all maintenance claims.

Who can file a maintenance increase lawsuit?

In poverty maintenance, the creditor in whose favor a ruling was previously made may file an increase claim based on changed circumstances. In child maintenance, Article 329 TMK provides that the mother or father who actually cares for the minor may file a maintenance lawsuit on behalf of the child against the other parent. The statutory distinctions regarding representation and capacity of discernment should be assessed separately according to the child’s position in the proceedings and the custody situation.

In maintenance for a child, the parent’s own personal claim and the claim asserted for the child’s benefit are not the same concept. It should be clear for which child, on the basis of which existing decision, for what monthly amount and from what start date the relief is sought. Where there is more than one child, the needs and amount may have to be assessed separately for each child.

Which court has subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction?

The court with subject-matter jurisdiction is the family court. Where there is no family court, the civil court of first instance designated to act as a family court under Law No. 4787 may hear the case. There is no general requirement that the lawsuit be filed in the court that heard the earlier divorce case.

In maintenance lawsuits after divorce, the court of the maintenance creditor’s domicile under Article 177 TMK and, under the general principle of jurisdiction in Article 6 HMK, the court of the defendant’s domicile may come into play. In Court of Cassation practice, it is accepted that Article 177 TMK gives the maintenance creditor an elective choice of jurisdiction and that it is not a rule of exclusive jurisdiction. The practice that, in the absence of a properly raised jurisdictional objection, the court cannot raise its own lack of jurisdiction of its own motion is also important.

The status of the parties to the case or a foreign element may change the assessment of domicile and international jurisdiction. In particular, in disputes where the parties reside in different countries, one should not rely solely on Article 177 TMK; whether the Law on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK) and the relevant international instruments apply in the specific case should be examined separately.

Is mandatory mediation required before filing a lawsuit?

In maintenance increase lawsuits, mandatory mediation is not provided for as a general procedural prerequisite merely because of this claim. That said, certain property disputes in family law may be suitable for mediation. The possibility of voluntary mediation or of a settlement agreed between the parties does not mean that every family law dispute can be decided freely and without regard to the child’s interests.

In agreements concerning a child, the best interests of the child, representation and the scope of the relevant court decision are important. A private agreement between the parties should not be treated as though it automatically changes an existing and enforceable court ruling. If the maintenance claim has been brought together with a different claim that is subject to another procedural prerequisite, the conditions of that claim are examined separately.

What evidence matters in a maintenance increase?

The main task of the person seeking an increase is not merely to say that expenses have risen but to explain with documents the change between the earlier maintenance decision and the present situation. The maintenance obligor, too, should substantiate their defenses concerning ability to pay, actual income and essential expenses. The court’s powers of ex officio investigation and the parties’ duties to make allegations, present defenses and submit evidence do not replace one another.

Earlier decision and payment records

• The earlier divorce or maintenance judgment, the finality endorsement and, if any, the uncontested divorce protocol.
• Increase/reduction/removal lawsuits filed previously and the decisions rendered.
• Any ruling on increases for future years, increase calculation schedules, amounts actually paid and bank receipts (dekont).
• Ongoing enforcement proceedings, payment orders and any claims of underpayment.

Records of the child’s and the creditor’s expenses

• School enrollment and fee information, and documents relating to school transport, books, stationery, courses and educational equipment.
• Health expenses, treatment documents and records containing personal data only to the extent necessary.
• The lease agreement, building service charges, and documents showing housing and basic living expenses.
• Dated payments that make it possible to compare expenses in past and current periods.

Records relating to ability to pay

• SGK service and wage records, payrolls, tax returns, and professional and commercial income documents.
• Lawfully obtained records relating to real estate, vehicles, rental income and company shareholdings.
• Documents showing job loss, health problems, mandatory maintenance obligations and actual expenses.
• Witness statements whose connection to the specific dispute is explained, and other lawful evidence.

When obtaining income and expense data, the protection of personal data, proportionality and the statutory rules of evidence should be observed. Documents with restricted access, such as bank and tax records, should not be sought by unlawful methods; requesting specific and relevant records through an official letter from the court (müzekkere) should be considered.

How is the new maintenance amount claimed calculated?

The law contains no fixed percentage increase applicable to all families. In the calculation, the amount legally payable on the filing date under the existing judgment is determined first. The effect of a previously agreed annual increase, the period of the current expenses and the payment records are set out. Then the current reasonable needs of the creditor or the child and the financial means of both parents or the parties concerned are assessed.

This comparison is not an automatic calculator that dictates an outcome to the court. In two families with similar incomes, the equitable amount of maintenance may differ because the number of children, educational needs, housing conditions, health expenses and maintenance obligations vary. For this reason, relying solely on “2026 maintenance calculation” tables found online is not safe.

Which matters must be stated clearly in the statement of claim?

The petition should correctly identify the earlier judgment and, if any, the relevant provisions of the protocol, show the old and current maintenance amounts separately, and explain the date and significance of the change in circumstances. The new monthly amount claimed, the amount of the increase over the existing amount, which type of maintenance is involved and that the increase is, as a rule, sought from the filing date should be stated clearly.

If an index-linked increase is sought for future years, this should also be stated separately. Which index, which period and which starting point are envisaged should be understandable for enforcement purposes. Claims relating to more than one child should be separated; it should be explained how other previously awarded obligations relating to school fees or an insurance policy are to be reflected in the new child maintenance.

In poverty maintenance, rather than reopening the earlier court’s determination of fault, the new economic and social facts on which the increase is based should be set out. Uncertainties in the relief sought should be avoided, bearing in mind the procedural rules on the judge being bound by the claims and the public policy nature of child maintenance.

How can the maintenance obligor oppose an increase claim?

The defendant’s defense should not consist merely of a general objection such as “the increase is too high” or “I have no income.” It should be examined through which annual increases the existing maintenance reached its current level, whether the expenses claimed were paid under the earlier ruling, the actual income and essential expenses, and whether the alleged new needs exist and are consistent with financial means. Documents showing that the school fees have already been covered, and whether the same expense is being claimed again, are particularly important.

In poverty maintenance, if it is claimed that the creditor’s poverty has ended or that one of the statutory grounds for termination has occurred, what should be assessed is not merely whether a defense against the increase lawsuit is sufficient, but whether a separate claim/lawsuit for the reduction or removal of maintenance is required. As regards the child’s maintenance, the dispute between the parents should not turn into a settling of scores that disregards the child’s needs deserving protection.

How do the reduction and removal of maintenance differ from an increase lawsuit?

An increase is the raising of an existing ongoing payment; a reduction is the lowering of the existing payment; and removal concerns ending the legal obligation for the future. Article 176/3 TMK distinguishes between the cases in which poverty maintenance paid as periodic income ends automatically for reasons such as remarriage and death, and the cases that require a court decision, such as living together as if married or the end of poverty.

This difference matters in practice: the maintenance debtor cannot of their own accord stop the payments arising from the judgment in force merely on the ground that they have filed a reduction or removal lawsuit. In child maintenance, too, the changed circumstances and the child’s interests should be examined together under Article 331 TMK. The choice of lawsuit and legal remedy should be determined according to the legal characterization of the specific case.

What happens to child maintenance and education expenses when the child reaches adulthood?

Under Article 328/1 TMK, the parents’ duty of maintenance continues, as a rule, until the child reaches adulthood. The effect of the child’s reaching adulthood on existing child maintenance and the possibility of an adult child who continues education seeking support from the parents under Article 328/2 TMK should be assessed separately. If education continues, the mother and father may continue their duty of maintenance until the education is completed, to the extent that can be expected of them in light of the situation and circumstances.

However, it should not be accepted that the old child maintenance will automatically continue without limit after adulthood with the same party status and under the same ruling. The claim that an adult child may assert in their own name and, where necessary, the provisions on support maintenance should be considered separately in terms of educational status, financial needs, the parents’ ability to pay and judicial practice.

Costs, legal aid and attorney fee award in a maintenance increase lawsuit

When filing the lawsuit, the filing fee and the decision and judgment fee, the advance on costs, service costs and, if deemed necessary, the costs of an expert or of obtaining documents may arise. The value on which the fees are based and any increase differential should be determined on the basis of the type of lawsuit and the relief sought, according to the tariff and practice in force. It is not correct to state the same amount as a fixed fee applicable to all files or to present figures from past years as if they were current fees.

The court rules on litigation costs and the attorney fee award (vekâlet ücreti) according to the outcome of the case. The financial consequences of partial acceptance or dismissal of the claim should be assessed together with the nature of the maintenance and the tariff in force. Persons who are unable to meet the costs and satisfy the statutory conditions may apply for legal aid under Articles 334 et seq. HMK. The conditions for legal aid are examined separately; filing an application does not mean that it is automatically granted.

Payment and enforcement proceedings after the decision

When an increase ruling is made, the date from which the new monthly amount applies, the taking into account of payments made in earlier months, the calculation of differences that arose in the past period and the rate of increase for future years should be determined carefully. The old and new amounts must not be collected twice for the same period. When resorting to enforcement, the scope of the judgment and the enforceability of the specific decision are checked separately.

If maintenance rulings are not complied with, coercive imprisonment may come into consideration under certain conditions pursuant to Article 344 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İcra ve İflas Kanunu); however, not every underpayment automatically leads to coercive imprisonment. Conditions such as the enforcement proceedings, service, the current maintenance debt, the time limits for complaints and the effect of any reduction/removal lawsuit filed should be assessed separately according to the relevant judicial practice. Pursuing a maintenance debt as a monetary claim and an enforcement criminal complaint (icra ceza şikâyeti) are different procedures.

What should be borne in mind at the stage of appeal to the regional court of appeal and to the Court of Cassation?

For review on appeal, it is important by which evidence the first-instance court determined the amount, whether it assessed significant income/expense objections, which increase system it used, whether it clearly indicated the start date and whether it exceeded the relief sought. In child maintenance, it is also important that the best interests of the child are reflected in the reasoning, that school expenses are not counted twice at the same time and that, where necessary, amendment is assessed.

The possibility of an appeal to the regional court of appeal or to the Court of Cassation is determined according to the type of the specific decision, the amount, the monetary finality thresholds for the relevant year and the procedural rules. It is not correct to say that all maintenance increase decisions are necessarily open to appeal to the Court of Cassation. The start of the time limit for applying, proper service and the finality/enforcement status of the decision should be investigated separately on the basis of the specific file.

Most common mistakes in a maintenance increase lawsuit

• Treating the original maintenance amount as the currently valid amount without applying the annual increase in the earlier ruling.
• Treating the consumer price index or producer price index rate as an automatic decision formula that makes it unnecessary to examine the child’s special needs and the parties’ ability to pay.
• Claiming school, school transport, health insurance or course fees again without comparing them with the obligations in the earlier protocol.
• Confusing a maintenance increase lawsuit with a first-time claim for maintenance or a lawsuit for the removal of maintenance.
• Interpreting the Constitutional Court’s 2026 annulment decision as meaning that all maintenance obligations ended immediately and automatically.
• Making abstract requests that excessively restrict private life when asking the court to investigate income and assets.
• Failing to request clearly the new monthly amount, the start of the increase or the method of increase for future years.
• Failing to consider in time amendment and other procedural options in the face of child expenses that change during the proceedings or income documents that come to light.
• Treating the filing of a lawsuit for reduction/removal of maintenance as automatically ending the payment obligation based on the earlier ruling.

Steps and document check before a maintenance increase lawsuit

For a sound assessment, the earlier maintenance decision, the protocol and the increase provisions should be gathered in a single file. The monthly amounts legally accrued and actually paid up to the filing date should be calculated separately, and the essential expenses of the child or the creditor should be classified by period. Changes in the parties’ incomes and their sources should be shown, and pre-existing expense items should be separated from newly arising ones.

Next, it should be clarified whether the subject of the lawsuit is an increase in existing maintenance, the determination of new maintenance, or the clarification or modification of a protocol provision. The relief sought, the applicable court/jurisdiction, any earlier increase lawsuit, the necessary evidentiary requests, the claim for increases in future years and the conditions for legal remedies should be prepared within this framework. A well-organized expense table provides a more meaningful assessment than simply submitting a large number of invoices.

Related articles: Types and Requirements of Maintenance; What Happens to Maintenance When Custody Changes?; Can Maintenance in Foreign Currency Be Converted into Turkish Lira (TL)?; Increasing, Reducing or Removing a Foreign Maintenance Decision.

Conclusion

The decisive criterion for a maintenance increase is the extent to which the economic balance established in the earlier decision can be preserved under changed circumstances. In poverty maintenance, financial change and equity are at the forefront; in child maintenance, the child’s actual needs and best interests and the parents’ ability to pay come first. Although inflation indicators are important, they do not by themselves determine the final amount. The 2026 Court of Cassation decisions highlight in particular that education expenses should be expressly included within the scope of maintenance and that child maintenance can be updated by amendment during the proceedings. The deferred entry into force of the Constitutional Court’s 2026 annulment decision, in turn, makes it necessary to keep the increase in the amount of maintenance separate from the debate over the future duration of poverty maintenance. For this reason, the earlier judgment, changing needs, ability to pay, evidence and relief sought should be assessed together before filing the lawsuit.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it mandatory to wait one year before filing a maintenance increase lawsuit?

No. Articles 176/4 and 331 TMK contain no general waiting period. What is decisive is that circumstances requiring an increase have arisen after the earlier decision and have been substantiated.

Does maintenance automatically increase every year at the consumer price index or producer price index rate?

Not always. It is examined whether the earlier court decision or an agreement incorporated into the judgment contains an applicable annual increase arrangement. If a ruling for future years is sought, it should be stated clearly in the relief sought.

If the amount of maintenance is set out in the uncontested divorce protocol, can it be increased?

As a rule, when circumstances change later, an increase or redetermination may come into consideration, particularly in child maintenance for the child’s benefit. However, the exact content of the protocol, the earlier ruling and separate obligations such as school/health expenses should be examined together.

Are private school fees paid separately from child maintenance?

The answer to this question depends on the scope of the specific judgment and protocol. The Court of Cassation’s 2026 decisions emphasize that education expenses should be taken into account in determining child maintenance and that vague obligations should be avoided in enforcement.

If the maintenance obligor becomes unemployed, will the increase lawsuit necessarily be dismissed?

No. The genuineness and duration of the claimed unemployment, other income and asset possibilities and the parties’ needs are examined together. Where the conditions are met, a claim for reduction or removal may be assessed separately.

Which court has jurisdiction in a maintenance increase lawsuit?

The family court has subject-matter jurisdiction. In maintenance disputes after divorce, the court of the maintenance creditor’s domicile and, within the general rule of jurisdiction, the court of the defendant’s domicile may come into consideration as alternatives.

Can increased maintenance be claimed from past months?

As a rule, an increase ruling takes effect from the filing date; unlimited retroactive application of the new increased amount to the months before the lawsuit should not be expected. Collecting unpaid instalments under the earlier ruling is a different matter.

Can the child maintenance claimed during the proceedings be increased?

The decision of the Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber dated March 4, 2026, E.2025/10739, K.2026/2494, adopted by majority vote, sets out an approach that accepts an increase by way of amendment in an independent child maintenance lawsuit. The procedural conditions and its effect in terms of timing should be examined separately.

Does the remarriage of the person paying maintenance automatically reduce the existing maintenance?

No. Although a new marriage and the resulting maintenance obligations may be relevant to the assessment of ability to pay, they do not automatically change the amount under the existing judgment.

What happens to child maintenance when the child turns 18?

The parents’ duty of maintenance continues, as a rule, until adulthood. An adult child who continues education seeking support under certain conditions is assessed separately under Article 328/2 TMK; it should not be assumed that the old child maintenance continues indefinitely in the same way.

Did the Constitutional Court’s 2026 maintenance decision abolish existing maintenance?

No. The Constitutional Court annulled the phrase “indefinitely” in Article 175 TMK but deferred its entry into force until June 30, 2027. The decision does not annul child maintenance; nor do existing maintenance debts end automatically when the decision is published.

Is mandatory mediation required for a maintenance increase decision?

There is no general mandatory mediation procedural prerequisite for this type of lawsuit. The parties’ voluntary settlement options and the limitations relating to the child’s interests are assessed separately.

How long does a maintenance increase lawsuit take?

No definite duration can be given. The gathering of evidence, social and economic status investigations, witness or expert examination, service procedures and recourse to legal remedies affect the process. The fact that the length of the proceedings may vary increases the need to determine the start date correctly in the relief sought.

Sources and legal bases

1. Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medenî Kanunu), in particular Articles 4, 169, 175–178, 182, 328–331, 364 et seq.; UYAP Legislation and Case Law Information System of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye (T.C. Adalet Bakanlığı).
2. Law No. 4787 on the Establishment, Duties and Trial Procedures of Family Courts (Aile Mahkemelerinin Kuruluş, Görev ve Yargılama Usullerine Dair Kanun), in particular Articles 2, 4 and 7; Ministry of Justice.
3. Constitutional Court, E.2025/156, K.2026/131, June 4, 2026; Official Gazette (RG) of September 30, 2026, No. 33386; annulment of the phrase “indefinitely” in Article 175 TMK, entry into force deferred for nine months.
4. Constitutional Court, İbrahim Acar, Application No. 2016/3140, November 7, 2019; income investigation and Article 17 of the Constitution.
5. Constitutional Court, E.2025/91, K.2025/82, March 27, 2025; distinguishing an increase/removal lawsuit from the conditions for applying Article 175 TMK.
6. Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 2. Hukuk Dairesi), E.2021/4645, K.2021/5308, June 28, 2021; the producer price index and the earlier economic balance in increasing poverty maintenance (access to the full text may be subject to the source provider’s login requirements).
7. Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, E.2025/10739, K.2026/2494, March 4, 2026; child maintenance, amendment and the scope of education expenses; decision adopted by majority vote.
8. Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, E.2025/8708, K.2026/6569, June 15, 2026; school and health expenses in the divorce protocol and child maintenance.
9. Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, E.2026/2775, K.2026/4877, April 29, 2026; school fees and the scope of child maintenance.
10. Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, E.2025/5925, K.2026/1465, February 10, 2026; requesting a producer price index increase for future years and ruling on it.
11. Court of Cassation 20th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 20. Hukuk Dairesi), E.2016/8896, K.2016/8411, October 4, 2016; jurisdiction in maintenance lawsuits not being exclusive jurisdiction.
12. Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, E.2023/9912, K.2024/339, January 17, 2024; maintenance and increase lawsuits taking effect from the filing date (decision published in the Istanbul Bar Association Journal (İstanbul Barosu Dergisi)).
13. Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular the provisions on general jurisdiction, amendment, costs and legal aid; to be read together with the current legislation.
14. Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu), Article 344; see also Court of Cassation 12th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi), E.2023/5923, K.2023/4875, September 12, 2023, current maintenance, enforcement proceedings, service and conditions for a complaint.
15. Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, E.2018/3-564, K.2019/1150, November 7, 2019; increase of poverty maintenance, maintenance under Article 328/2 TMK, and the distinction between a partial action and amendment.
16. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Birleşmiş Milletler Çocuk Haklarına Dair Sözleşme); Article 3 and the principle of the best interests of the child.