Unpaid maintenance may lead to coercive imprisonment of up to three months if the conditions are met. However, the existence of an unpaid maintenance balance alone is not enough. The nature of the maintenance order, enforcement proceedings, the notifications made to the debtor and, where applicable, to their counsel, the monthly amounts at issue and the timing of the application are examined together. For this reason, although the recovery of past debt and a complaint of non-compliance with a maintenance order may arise from the same case file, they require different legal assessments. [1]
This guide explains, within the same framework, how a maintenance creditor should prepare a complaint and what defence options a debtor has. It focuses in particular on applications made before service is complete, confusion between current monthly maintenance and past arrears, and reliance on an outdated objection period. The review date is October 14, 2026.
What purpose does coercive imprisonment serve?
Article 344 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu) provides for coercive imprisonment of up to three months, on the creditor's complaint, against a debtor who fails to comply with a maintenance decision. The aim is to secure performance of the obligation arising from the court decision. Imprisonment does not extinguish the maintenance debt; recovery of the debt through enforcement may continue separately. Payment of the debt specified in the law has consequences for whether the coercive imprisonment continues or lapses. [1]
Three months is not a fixed period that is applied automatically in every file. The court first examines whether the application meets the statutory conditions. Rather than stating only that “maintenance was not paid”, the creditor should set out the decision and enforcement details, the service dates, the unpaid periods and the payments credited. The debtor, for their part, should link any payments made to specific months and support them with bank records.
Can an application also be based on interim maintenance?
The fact that interim maintenance was ordered by an interlocutory decision during divorce proceedings does not by itself prevent a complaint of maintenance non-compliance. However, the type of enforcement document, the enforcement route chosen and the method of service must also be checked separately. The general statement that “imprisonment cannot be sought for any maintenance order before it becomes final” is misleading. The Court of Cassation decisions from 2025 and 2026 discussed below also address interim maintenance ordered during a divorce. [3; 4] The related procedural steps are also explained in the Interim Maintenance article.
Which conditions should be checked before a complaint?
The check is not a matter of ticking independent boxes. The relationship between the dates is decisive. For example, if the debtor has not paid for three months but the enforcement order has not yet been served on the persons who must receive it, that does not by itself make the application valid.
| Check item | Information to look for in the file | Effect on the outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Maintenance order | Decision or interlocutory order, amount and start date | Defines the scope of the obligation |
| Enforcement and service | Enforcement file; service records for the party and for counsel | Shows whether the complaint is premature |
| Current maintenance | Periods running after service | Must not be confused with old debt |
| Payment | Bank and enforcement collection records | Prevents missing or duplicate accounting |
| Timing of the complaint | Dates of knowledge, violation and application | Checks the preclusive period |
This table does not guarantee any outcome. In particular, where service was defective, a payment date was recorded incorrectly or the maintenance was later amended, the legal effect of the records is assessed separately. [1–4]
Why service on the party and on counsel matter together
Coercive imprisonment affects personal liberty. For this reason, it matters that the debtor party is duly informed of the obligation in person. Where the matter is handled through counsel, however, the rule on service on counsel in Article 11 of the Notification Law No. 7201 (Tebligat Kanunu) cannot be disregarded either. Service on one person does not in every case make unnecessary the service that must be made on the other in the specific file. [2; 3]
Decision of the 12th Civil Chamber of July 1, 2025
In file E.2025/4488, K.2025/5031, the debtor party was served, but service on counsel was made only after the complaint. The 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi) accepted the request for reversal in the interest of the law, holding that service on the party did not remove the need for service on counsel, and lifted the coercive imprisonment. [3]
In practice, a service receipt (mazbata) should not be treated as sufficient merely because it is “in the file”. It should be read to see to whom it was issued, on what date and for which document. The scope of the representation, whether it continued, and whether the creditor was aware of it also matter. This decision does not mean that service on a separate lawyer is required in every enforcement proceeding where no counsel is involved.
The difference between accumulated and current maintenance
Maintenance for past years may be a monetary claim that can be collected. In the review for coercive imprisonment, however, it is separately examined whether current monthly maintenance accrued between service and the complaint. A large debt accumulated over many years does not replace this condition. [5]
In the 12th Civil Chamber's decision of October 6, 2020, file E.2020/5812, K.2020/8138, the payment order was served on September 14, 2019 and the complaint was made on October 7, 2019. Because at least one month of current maintenance had not accrued in the interval, the decision on coercive imprisonment was reversed in the interest of the law. The decision does not support the conclusion that it is always enough for a calendar month to be mentioned; the period between service and application is calculated concretely. [5]
How should the period list be prepared?
For each month, the amount ordered, the basis for any increase if one applies, the payment date, the payment made and the remaining principal should be shown on a separate line. Costs, attorney's fees and interest should not be presented as a single figure combined with the maintenance principal. When the months to which the complaint relates are clear, both the defence and the court's review proceed more soundly.
What are the complaint and objection deadlines?
Under Article 347 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, a complaint must be made within three months from learning of the act and, in any case, within one year from the act. For monthly debts, it should not be assumed that all earlier periods become open to complaint again together with the last unpaid month. Each violation is assessed on its own timing. [1]
| Step | Current general period or criterion |
|---|---|
| Complaint of maintenance non-compliance | Three months from learning; in any case one year from the violation |
| Objection to a coercive imprisonment decision | Two weeks from service, under Article 353 |
| Limitation period for enforcement | Two years from finality, under Article 354 |
The “seven days” objection period found in older texts is not the current general rule. Article 353 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law was amended by Law No. 7499, and transitional provisions must be examined for proceedings dated before the amendment. The last day of the period, the validity of service and the date on which electronic service takes legal effect are determined from the file. [1; 2]
Does filing a maintenance reduction action automatically stop imprisonment?
No. Article 344 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law provides that, where an action for termination or reduction of maintenance has been brought, the enforcement of coercive imprisonment may be deferred until the end of that action, having regard to the grounds raised. This possibility does not arise automatically from the mere filing of a suit. The relevant action and grounds should be submitted to the court, and an express assessment should be requested. [1]
In its decision of January 20, 2026, file E.2026/227, K.2026/222, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation did not treat an ongoing divorce action, and the income review within that file, as identical to a separate maintenance reduction or termination action. The request for reversal in the interest of the law was rejected. Summarising the decision as “imprisonment cannot be applied because the divorce is ongoing” would reverse its outcome. [4]
Payment, withdrawal of the complaint and attendance at the hearing
Articles 344 and 354 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law regulate the consequences of payment of the debt and of withdrawal of the complaint. Where payment is made, the bank receipt (dekont) should be submitted to the file and a decision should be requested. Which debt was paid, which months the complaint concerns and the enforcement account must be made clear; an undocumented statement that “it was paid” should not be accepted as sufficient. [1]
The complaint is heard by the enforcement court at the place where the enforcement proceedings were initiated. Under the special procedure in Article 349, if the complainant does not attend the hearing and is not represented by counsel, the right to complain may be lost. Hearing dates and notifications should be followed regularly. For the debtor, defence submissions, payment records and objections to service should also be prepared in time. [1]
Conclusion
Effective application in a maintenance non-compliance case depends less on showing a large total debt than on establishing the correct period and the chain of service. The order, enforcement, service, current monthly maintenance and payment records should be assessed on one timeline. For the debtor, payment and procedural objections should likewise be supported by documents. Reviewing these records together in the specific file prevents the loss of rights in relation to a measure that affects both recovery and personal liberty.
Related articles: Interest and Annual Increase Calculation for Maintenance: Start Date, Index and Missed Payments; Can Overpaid Maintenance Be Recovered? Restitution, Refund in Enforcement Proceedings and Time Limits; How and Where to File a Maintenance Action? Competent Court, Jurisdiction, Mediation and Legal Aid.
Frequently Asked Questions
Will imprisonment be ordered immediately if maintenance is unpaid for one month?
No. The decision, enforcement, service, the current period and the conditions for a timely complaint are assessed together. A court decision is required. [1; 5]
Can coercive imprisonment be requested only for an old maintenance debt?
That an old debt is collectable does not by itself satisfy the condition of current monthly maintenance. The period running after service is determined separately. [5]
Must the divorce become final before interim maintenance is protected?
Interim maintenance is not excluded from this protection merely because the divorce has not become final. The document, the enforcement route and the other conditions are assessed separately. [3; 4]
Is service on the debtor's lawyer sufficient?
For a liability that affects personal liberty, service on the party is also important. Where the matter is handled through counsel, the service that must be made on counsel is taken into account as well. [2; 3]
If the party has been served, is service on counsel no longer needed?
The 2025 decision shows that this is not an automatic result. In the specific case, a complaint made before service on counsel was completed was not found valid. [3]
What is the time limit for a complaint?
A three-month limit applies from learning of the act and, in any case, a one-year limit from the violation. Each monthly period is checked separately. [1]
How long is the period for objecting to coercive imprisonment?
Under the current rule in Article 353, it is two weeks from service of the decision. Transitional provisions are examined separately for older proceedings. [1]
Is filing a reduction action enough?
It does not provide an automatic stay. The court may defer enforcement until the end of the case, having regard to the grounds raised. [1; 4]
Does imprisonment end the maintenance debt?
No. Imprisonment does not replace payment of the monetary debt; the recovery process continues separately. [1]
Must the complainant attend the hearing?
The special procedure in Article 349 must be observed. If the complainant does not attend and is not represented by counsel, the right may be lost. [1]
Sources and legal bases
- Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu), arts. 344, 347–349, 353–354. <https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.3.2004.pdf>
- Notification Law No. 7201 (Tebligat Kanunu), arts. 7(a) and 11. <https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.3.7201.pdf>
- Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi), July 1, 2025, E.2025/4488, K.2025/5031. <https://mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr/ictihat/1169711200>
- Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi), January 20, 2026, E.2026/227, K.2026/222. <https://mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr/ictihat/1202451400>
- Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi), October 6, 2020, E.2020/5812, K.2020/8138. <https://mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr/ictihat/601706300>