Bringing an action concerning filiation does not by itself remove an existing maintenance award. In a paternity action, however, even if the legal bond has not yet become final, an interim payment order may be issued for the child where the likelihood of paternity is found to be strong and maintenance is requested together with the action. Reclaiming maintenance paid in the past requires a claim and an examination of proof separate from the disavowal of filiation. [1–4]
Three separate time periods matter here: the child’s support while the action is pending, the obligation after the filiation judgment becomes final, and past payments. Combining them into a single explanation such as “the DNA result came back, so maintenance is over” can lead to serious mistakes. The guide explains this distinction on the basis of the rules in force on 14 October 2026.
How is disavowal of filiation distinguished from a paternity action?
Removing an existing paternal bond
A legal bond of filiation may exist between a husband and a child born within the marriage or covered by the statutory presumption. An action for disavowal of filiation aims to rebut this presumption. A private laboratory result or an agreement among the parties does not by itself change the population record or an existing court decision. [1]
Under the text of Article 286 TMK as amended in 2024, the husband, the mother or the child may bring an action for disavowal of filiation. Older statements that the mother can never bring such an action are therefore out of date. The right of other interested persons to sue depends on the special conditions in Article 291. [1]
Establishing paternity by court decision
A paternity action aims at establishing, by court judgment, the bond of filiation between the child and the father. Under Article 301 TMK the mother and the child may bring the action; if the defendant father has died, his heirs come into play as parties. If the child already has a legal bond of filiation with another man, the question of removing it must be resolved first or in connection with the action. [1]
In a maintenance claim it must be clear whether the mother is asserting her own personal right or the child’s right by way of representation. The child’s age, the custody situation and the possibility of a conflict of interest affect the composition of the parties. Whether a representative curator (kayyım) is needed for the child should be assessed at the outset of the file. [1]
Does existing maintenance stop when the action is brought?
Bringing an action for disavowal of filiation or carrying out a DNA examination does not by itself stop enforcement of an existing maintenance judgment. Where there is an obligation established by another court decision, a debtor who stops paying on the basis of his own assessment alone may cause enforcement and other disputes. The legal status, the finality of the relevant decision and how the maintenance provision will be dealt with must be assessed together. [1, 2]
Articles 350 and 367 HMK, under which decisions on persons and family law cannot be carried out before they become final, matter for the filiation judgment. By contrast, the interim protection provided by law for the child’s needs during the action is a separate matter. The finality rule cannot be interpreted to mean that no interim maintenance order may be issued in a paternity action. [1, 2]
| Stage | Key question | Correct approach |
|---|---|---|
| An action for disavowal of filiation has been brought | Does the old maintenance stop automatically? | Review the existing judgment and the necessary legal application |
| The DNA report has entered the file | Does the population record change automatically? | Complete the proceedings and the judgment process |
| The paternity action is pending | How is the child’s support protected? | Assess the conditions of Article 333 TMK |
| The filiation judgment has become final | How will future maintenance be regulated? | Deal with the judgment, the record and the enforcement file together |
| Old payments are being reclaimed | Which claim and which time limit apply? | Determine the ground for return, the defendant and the payment period |
Can maintenance be claimed before judgment in a paternity action?
Conditions of Article 333 TMK
If maintenance has been requested together with the paternity action and the judge finds the likelihood of paternity strong, the judge may order an appropriate payment for the child’s needs before judgment. This provision ensures that the child’s basic needs are met while the proceedings continue. The mere fact that a paternity allegation is written in the petition is not the same as an assessment of strong likelihood. [1]
Evidence on the time of the relationship, statements in the file and scientific examination may be assessed together. Carrying out a DNA examination is subject to the conditions of Article 292 HMK. A report obtained by the court and matched with the parties should not be regarded as equally reliable as a private report whose link to identity and sample is unclear. [1, 2]
Starting date of maintenance
In its decision of 28 February 2022, E.2021/10407, K.2022/1840, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held it incorrect to start maintenance requested together with paternity only from the finality of the paternity judgment. In the specific case, where paternity was established, it stated that maintenance should be awarded from the date of the action. [3]
This decision does not ensure automatic acceptance of the amount requested in every paternity allegation. The starting date and the amount are separate matters. Under Article 330 TMK, the child’s needs and the living conditions and ability to pay of the mother and father must be assessed. [1, 3]
If recognition occurs during the action
Recognition made while the proceedings continue does not by itself remove the maintenance and other financial claims requested for the child. In its decision of 3 April 2014, E.2013/19803, K.2014/6241, the 18th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation explained that the date of the action, rather than the date of recognition, should be taken as the starting point of maintenance. The adequacy of the investigation of income and assets was also examined. [4]
Are the mother’s expense claims the same as child maintenance?
No. Article 304 TMK provides that the mother may claim the costs of childbirth, her living expenses for six weeks before and six weeks after the birth, and other expenses required by pregnancy and childbirth. These are not the same claim as the child’s maintenance paid every month. In the judgment, the basis of each item and the person in whose favor it is requested must be shown separately. [1]
In the decision E.2013/19803, K.2014/6241, an expert calculation based on the mother’s average credit card spending was not considered sufficient; it was emphasized that the expenses specified in the law must be determined on the basis of documents and appropriate examination. Instead of directly asserting the total of general living expenses as pregnancy and childbirth expenses, an item-by-item explanation should therefore be given. [4]
What happens to future maintenance once disavowal of filiation becomes final?
Disavowal of filiation affects the legal basis of the existing paternal bond. However, the periods covered by the maintenance judgment, the outcome of the final decision and the step to be taken in the existing enforcement proceeding must be dealt with together. Obtaining the decision with the finality annotation, the current status of the population record and making the appropriate application to the relevant enforcement file are of practical importance. The enforcement office should not be expected to resolve on its own every return or past-period issue that requires a court proceeding. [1, 2, 5]
The retroactive effect of filiation and the consequences of maintenance judgments previously issued and applied are not on the same level. Continuing payment for the future, the status of accrued installments and the return of amounts previously collected may require separate claims. A formula such as “on the day it becomes final, all past debts are wiped out” cannot be established without examining the file. [5]
Can maintenance paid in the past be recovered?
Legal basis for return
In some cases, a claim for return by a person who made payments after disavowal of filiation may be assessed under the provisions on unjust enrichment. However, a decision of disavowal of filiation is not by itself a judgment on a receivable ordering the return of a specific amount. Who was enriched, to whom and on what legal ground the money was paid, the payment dates and the defenses raised are examined separately. [5, 6]
In the decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 28 November 2011, E.2011/12985, K.2011/18922, disavowal of filiation became final after payments made on the basis of maintenance judgments. The court of first instance rejected the claim for return relying on the one-year period in Article 72 İİK; the Court of Cassation stated that the specific claim should be assessed under the provisions on unjust enrichment and that its merits should be examined. [5]
The decision did not reach the conclusion that “all maintenance paid is necessarily returned.” It required the merits to be examined. Moreover, the decision dates from the period of the former Code of Obligations; the one-year period of learning in the decision cannot be used in place of today’s Article 82 TBK. [5, 6]
Current limitation period and the right defendant
Article 82 TBK provides for unjust enrichment a period of two years from learning of the right to reclaim and in any event ten years from the enrichment. In which event the right was learned, the arising of the claim, the transition between the old and new codes and different payment periods are assessed separately. The finality of the filiation judgment may be important in this examination; however, it would not be correct to accept the same date as an automatic starting point in every file. [5, 6]
That a payment was made to the mother does not show that she is personally the debtor of return under all conditions. Elements such as collection on behalf of the child, actual enrichment and the defense of disposal under Article 79 TBK are investigated. The basis of a possible claim against the biological father must also be established separately; a decision of disavowal of filiation does not by itself give authority to collect against a third party. [1, 6]
Non-pecuniary damages and child expenses should not be confused
Return of past payments and compensation based on violation of personality rights are not the same cause of action. The finding that a person is not the biological father does not by itself prove the unlawful and culpable conduct of a particular person, the damage and the causal link. If compensation is sought, the specific conduct and the legal conditions must be shown separately. [6]
In the 2011 decision, the claim for non-pecuniary damages was separated into a different file; it cannot be concluded from the part of the decision on the return of maintenance that non-pecuniary damages were accepted. A dispute between adults, to which the child is not a party, should not be turned into a narrative aimed at the child’s personality or basic needs. [5]
Which records matter when preparing the action?
The population record, earlier divorce and maintenance judgments, finality information, the filiation file, and bank or enforcement collection records should be gathered together. If return is sought, the date and amount of each payment are written separately. A total maintenance calculation alone does not always prove that a payment was made. It must be clearly determined whether the claim is made in the name of the child, the mother or the person who made the payment.
| Document group | Question it answers | Point to note |
|---|---|---|
| Population and filiation records | How was the legal bond established? | Distinguish the biological allegation from the record |
| Maintenance judgments | What debt arose for which period? | Separate interim maintenance and child maintenance (iştirak nafakası) |
| Filiation judgment and finality | Has the change of status been completed? | Do not rely on the DNA report alone |
| Payment receipts and enforcement collections | Who was actually paid what? | Duplicate entries and unexplained transfers |
| Child and childbirth expenses | Which need is being claimed? | Separate child maintenance from the mother’s expenses |
Conclusion
In a filiation dispute, maintenance requires dealing together with the child’s support during the action and the financial consequences of the change of status. In a paternity action an interim payment may be possible; in disavowal of filiation, the fate of the existing judgment and the return of past payments are assessed separately. Without correctly establishing standing to sue, finality and payment records, neither automatic cancellation of the debt nor a certain return should be promised.
Related articles: Appeal and Cassation Review of a Maintenance Decision: Application Periods, Finality Limits and Scope of Review; Securing Child Maintenance: Security, Protection of Assets and Interim Measures; Transferring Assets to Avoid a Maintenance Debt: Annulment of Dispositions, Sham Transactions and Collection Routes; Can Overpaid Maintenance Be Recovered? Restitution, Return in the Enforcement File and Time Limits.
Frequently Asked Questions
If a DNA test shows that the man is not the father, does maintenance stop immediately?
The test result alone does not remove the existing judgment. The court judgment, finality and the necessary applications must be assessed together. [1, 2]
Can the mother bring an action for disavowal of filiation?
Yes. Under the current text of Article 286 TMK, as amended in 2024, the mother is also among the persons who may bring the action. Time limits and standing conditions are examined separately. [1]
Is the time limit for disavowal of filiation the same for everyone?
No. The starting point and conditions differ for the husband, the mother, the child and other interested persons. Articles 289 and 291 TMK must be assessed together. [1]
Can payment for the child be requested before the paternity action ends?
If maintenance has been requested together with the action and the likelihood of paternity is found to be strong, Article 333 TMK may be applied. [1, 3]
Does maintenance start only from the finality of the paternity judgment?
Not in every case. The verified Court of Cassation decisions state that, under specific conditions, it should start from the date of the action. [3, 4]
If the father recognizes the child while the action is pending, does the maintenance claim lapse?
Recognition does not by itself remove maintenance and financial claims. The starting date and amount are examined separately. [4]
Are childbirth costs included in child maintenance?
The expenses the mother may claim are regulated separately in Article 304 TMK. They should not be combined with monthly child maintenance in a duplicated or vague manner. [1, 4]
Is there a one-year period for reclaiming past maintenance?
The period varies according to the legal ground of the claim. For unjust enrichment, current Article 82 TBK provides two-year and ten-year periods; the one year in the older decision is not the current rule. [5, 6]
Does disavowal of filiation guarantee the return of all payments?
No. The ground for return, the right defendant, enrichment, payment periods and defenses are examined separately. [5, 6]
Can earlier payments be collected directly from the biological father?
A decision of disavowal of filiation is not by itself a judgment for collection in this respect. The legal basis and conditions of the claim to be directed must be established separately. [1, 6]
Sources and legal bases
- Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, especially Arts. 282–291, 301–304, 327–334 and 426; the text of Article 286 as amended by Law No. 7531.
- Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Arts. 292, 350 and 367.
- Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, 28.02.2022, E.2021/10407, K.2022/1840.
- Court of Cassation 18th Civil Chamber, 03.04.2014, E.2013/19803, K.2014/6241.
- Court of Cassation 3rd Civil Chamber, 28.11.2011, E.2011/12985, K.2011/18922. The distinction between the period under the former Code of Obligations and the current TBK has been observed.
- Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, Arts. 49, 58 and 77–82; for old payments, the Enactment Law No. 6101 is also taken into account.