The route of challenge against a maintenance order depends on whether the order was issued in an independent maintenance action or within a divorce case, on the annual amount in dispute and on the nature of the order. The general filing period for an appeal to the regional court of appeal (istinaf) and for an appeal to the Court of Cassation (temyiz) is two weeks from proper notification. However, not every maintenance order is open to two-stage review. Because of the 2026 amendments, saying only that a case is "below the appeal threshold" is also not sufficient in every file. [1, 2]
This guide explains how the right to challenge should be assessed under the provisions in force as of October 14, 2026. The calculation of maintenance, the challenge to maintenance and the suspension of enforcement are different questions. A correct review begins by identifying each maintenance item in the operative part of the judgment separately.
What distinction should be made first in a maintenance order?
Independent maintenance and increase actions
In an independently filed action for maintenance, increase, reduction or termination, the monetary value of the dispute matters for the available remedy. The annual equivalent of the monthly amount in dispute in the challenge is calculated. In an increase action, confusing the whole of the old maintenance with the increase difference can lead to a wrong assessment of the right to challenge. The part not granted to the claimant is not the same as the part the paying party wants removed. [1, 4, 5]
Maintenance tied to the divorce judgment
In a divorce case, interim, child and poverty maintenance may exist together. The relationship of these items to the main divorce judgment and the part taken to the higher court must be taken into account. The assessment of monetary finality used for an independent maintenance action cannot be applied mechanically to every claim that is ancillary to the divorce. In combined files, on the other hand, an independent claim may retain that character even if it is in the same decision. [4]
In its decision of June 1, 2026, E.2025/10820, K.2026/5696, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation rejected the challenge directed at independent protective-measure maintenance on the ground of the amount, while examining the other objections tied to the divorce. The decision shows that all maintenance items in the same judgment cannot be treated as a single item. The 2020 threshold in the decision cannot be used for a new case filed in 2026. [4]
Interim decision issued while the proceedings are pending
An interim maintenance order issued during a divorce under Article 169 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) is not the same as an interim injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK). Rather than filing an appeal petition directly against every interim decision, the legal nature of the decision and the special remedy provision should be examined. A request for reconsideration before the court that issued the interim decision and a remedy against the final judgment do not substitute for one another. [1, 7]
How is the appeal period calculated?
The general period is two weeks under HMK Article 345 for the appeal to the regional court of appeal and HMK Article 361 for the appeal to the Court of Cassation. The proper notification of the reasoned judgment, to whom the notification was made and the notification record in a file pursued through an attorney are checked together. That the decision appears in UYAP or was learned at the hearing cannot in every case replace the period that starts with notification. [1]
A period set in weeks ends, in the last week, at the end of the day corresponding to the day of notification. If the last day falls on an official holiday, the period ends on the first business day after the holiday. In electronic notification, the day the message is opened and the day on which it is deemed legally notified may differ; the fifth-day rule in Article 7/a of Law No. 7201 is taken into account. [1, 8]
Maintenance and filiation cases are among the matters that can be heard during the judicial recess. For this reason, one should not proceed on the assumption that "all filing periods are suspended during the judicial recess." The period must be calculated from the notification document; the final period given by the court for missing court fees and expenses must also be tracked separately. [1]
| Step | General period or basis | Critical check |
|---|---|---|
| Appeal against the maintenance judgment | Two weeks from proper notification | Final decision and right to challenge |
| Appeal to the Court of Cassation against a BAM decision open to appeal | Two weeks from notification | HMK Article 362 obstacles and the new third paragraph |
| Electronic notification | End of the fifth day following arrival at the electronic address | Not to be confused with the time of reading |
| Completion of fees and expenses | One-week final period notified under HMK Article 344 | Consequence of being deemed to have withdrawn the challenge |
| Challenge by joining | Assessed within the statutory response period | Dependence on the status of the principal challenge |
The periods in the table are the general procedural framework. A complaint to the enforcement court, an objection to coercive imprisonment or recognition of a foreign judgment are not treated as the same application. [1, 8]
To which case do the 2026 monetary thresholds apply?
Under HMK Supplementary Article 1/2 as amended by Law No. 7550, the amount on the date the case was filed is the basis for the monetary threshold on appeal to the regional court of appeal and to the Court of Cassation. Therefore, the fact that a decision was given in 2026 does not mean that the 2026 threshold applies to all cases filed earlier. The annual revaluation and the rounding rule in the law are assessed together. [1, 4]
For cases filed in 2026 and subject to the general monetary thresholds, the threshold for the appeal to the regional court of appeal is 50,000 TL and the general threshold for the appeal to the Court of Cassation is 682,000 TL. The threshold must be exceeded; an amount equal to the threshold is not sufficient. The 2025 revaluation rate is 25.49 percent. These figures alone do not determine the outcome of a challenge; HMK Article 362/3 in particular must be examined separately. [1, 3, 9]
The annual equivalent of the monthly difference
As an example, suppose that in an independent increase action the claim is to raise monthly maintenance of 5,000 TL to 15,000 TL and the court awards 10,000 TL. If the claimant disputes the remaining difference of 5,000 TL and the defendant disputes only the whole of the increase, the annual difference in dispute for each of them is 60,000 TL. If the defendant wants only the 2,000 TL portion reduced, the annual value it disputes is 24,000 TL. This example shows the legal method; it is built on the assumption that there is no other claim or consolidation of cases. [1, 5]
If there are several children or types of maintenance, the items should first be written separately. The claims of different right holders should not be added together automatically merely because they are in the same petition. Joinder of claims, standing to sue and the scope of the challenge are assessed separately. In decision E.2025/8278, K.2025/9366 of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the annual amounts of the rejected poverty and child maintenance were calculated separately and the total was also shown in the concrete file. This calculation is not an automatic rule of addition applicable to all files. [5]
If the judgment changes on appeal to the regional court of appeal, does the route to the Court of Cassation open?
The scope of the Constitutional Court decision
By its decision of February 26, 2026, E.2026/49, K.2026/48, the Constitutional Court annulled HMK Article 362/1-a with respect to the partial or full acceptance of an appeal to the regional court of appeal. The decision was published on May 21, 2026. The reasoning stressed the need to review the new judgment that results when the first-instance decision is changed on appeal. The annulment does not mean that all obstacles to appeal to the Court of Cassation have been removed. [3]
The new provision that entered into force on July 31, 2026
A third paragraph was added to HMK Article 362 by Article 25 of Law No. 7589. Where a new decision on the merits is given upon partial or full acceptance of the appeal, the basic criterion is whether the accepted or rejected part exceeds the monetary threshold for appeal to the regional court of appeal. However, in decisions that remain below the general threshold for appeal to the Court of Cassation, an appeal is not possible if the difference between the BAM judgment and the first-instance judgment does not exceed the threshold for appeal to the regional court of appeal. There is also a separate restriction for a change relating only to litigation costs or the attorney's fee. [1, 2]
For this reason, the nature of the BAM decision, whether "rejection on the merits," "setting aside and giving a new judgment on the merits" or "remand of the file," is determined first. Separate bars to appeal, such as for interim protective measures and decisions under HMK Article 353/1-a, continue. The period in which the Constitutional Court decision was published and the period in which the new law entered into force should not be confused. For completed procedural acts and past decisions, the temporal application is examined separately within the framework of HMK Article 448. [1–3]
| Status of the BAM decision | Method of review | Approach that is not sufficient on its own |
|---|---|---|
| Rejection of the appeal on the merits | General threshold for appeal to the Court of Cassation and other obstacles | "I went to the regional court of appeal, so I will certainly appeal to the Court of Cassation" |
| Acceptance and a new judgment on the merits | HMK Article 362/3 and calculation of the difference | Looking only at 682,000 TL |
| Remand decision | HMK Article 353/1-a and Article 362/1-g | Treating the decision as the final judgment on the merits |
| Interim legal protection | Special remedy and Article 362/1-f | Equating it with the maintenance judgment on the merits |
Which grounds are effective in the petition of appeal?
Review on appeal to the regional court of appeal is limited to the grounds of the challenge, subject to violations of public order. Instead of the sentence "the decision is unlawful," the income document that was wrongly assessed, the child expense that was overlooked, the wrong starting date or the mismatch between the claim and the judgment should be shown. Each objection should be linked to the relevant paragraph of the operative part and to the evidence in the file. [1]
It should not be assumed that new allegations and evidence can be freely submitted on appeal to the regional court of appeal. The limitations and exceptions in HMK Article 357 apply. Evidence submitted during the first instance but not examined is not the same as a new fact created later. On appeal to the Court of Cassation, on the other hand, lawfulness is mainly reviewed; the Court of Cassation does not act like a first-instance court preparing a new maintenance budget. [1]
Why does partial finality matter?
The remedy status of the divorce judgment, interim maintenance and child maintenance may differ. A new judgment should not be requested without determining which part remained outside the challenge and the scope of the earlier reversal. In its decision of March 1, 2023, E.2021/771, K.2023/135, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation did not accept that the amount of interim maintenance that had become final in the earlier review could be changed again after the reversal was followed. [6]
This decision does not mean that maintenance whose conditions change later can never be adjusted. Reopening a final part within the same proceedings and a request for increase or reduction based on new facts are different. Writing the scope of the challenge clearly prevents both unwanted finality and a fruitless objection directed at a part that has become final. [6, 7]
Does a challenge stop maintenance payments?
Filing an appeal petition does not by itself extinguish the maintenance debt. HMK Articles 350 and 367 are assessed together with the enforceability of the judgment before finality. The date on which an independent maintenance judgment and maintenance tied to a divorce arise is not the same question. Before payment is stopped, the nature of the judgment, the parts that have become final and the enforcement file must be examined together. [1, 7]
Conclusion
An effective challenge to a maintenance order begins with determining the notification date and continues with separating the type of case, the annual value in dispute and the parts of the judgment that are objected to. The 2026 Constitutional Court decision and the amendment to HMK Article 362/3 require a separate assessment, particularly in files where the BAM changed the judgment. When the petition of appeal is prepared, the time limit, admissibility and objections on the merits should be addressed together.
Related articles: Securing Child Maintenance: Security, Protection of Assets and Interim Measures; Transferring Property to Avoid a Maintenance Debt: Annulment of Dispositions, Sham Transactions and Collection Routes; Maintenance in Actions to Disavow Paternity and Paternity Actions: Interim Payment, Finality and Past Payments; Can a Maintenance Order Be Enforced Before It Becomes Final? Interim Maintenance, Divorce and Appeal Distinctions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Within how many days can a maintenance order be appealed to the regional court of appeal?
The general period is set not in days but as two weeks, and it starts with proper notification. The calculation of weeks and official holidays is made according to the HMK. [1]
Does every maintenance order go to the Court of Cassation?
No. The type of case, the monetary value, the nature of the BAM decision and the special obstacles to appeal are assessed together. [1, 2]
Is the 2026 threshold necessarily applied to a decision given in 2026?
No. Under current HMK Supplementary Article 1/2, the date the case was filed is the basis for the monetary threshold. [1, 4]
Is monthly or annual maintenance taken into account?
In an independent maintenance dispute, the annual equivalent of the monthly portion subject to the challenge matters. The increase difference is determined separately. [4, 5]
If the regional court of appeal reduces the maintenance, can a low-amount decision be appealed to the Court of Cassation?
It may be possible if the conditions of HMK Article 362/3 are met. In addition to the general threshold, the amount of the new judgment and its difference from the first decision are examined. [1, 2]
If only the maintenance is challenged, can the divorce become final?
Partial finality may come into play for separable parts of the judgment that remain outside the challenge. The challenges of all parties must be examined together. [1, 6]
Can a new document be submitted on appeal to the regional court of appeal?
There is no unlimited right. The exceptions in HMK Article 357 and why the document could not be assessed at first instance are important. [1]
If the decision says "final," can no review be made at all?
The law determines the right to a remedy. In assessing an incorrect statement about the available remedy, the true nature of the decision and the time limits must be taken into account. [1]
Is maintenance not paid once a petition of appeal to the Court of Cassation is filed?
The challenge alone does not stop payment. The enforceability of the judgment and the conditions for the start of maintenance are assessed separately. [1]
Is the period for correction of a decision in old decisions still valid today?
The periods under the old HUMK regime are not carried over unchanged to the current BAM and appeal system. Files within the transitional provisions are examined separately. [1, 6]
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), especially Arts. 92–93, 103, 341–362, 367, 369, 371, 448 and Supplementary Art. 1. Current official text.
- Law No. 7589, Arts. 25–26; Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete), July 31, 2026.
- Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi), February 26, 2026, E.2026/49, K.2026/48; Official Gazette May 21, 2026, 33260; especially §§ 6–7 and the conclusion.
- Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 2nd Civil Chamber, June 1, 2026, E.2025/10820, K.2026/5696.
- Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) 2nd Civil Chamber, November 3, 2025, E.2025/8278, K.2025/9366. On the annual amount method; a decision predating the 2026 amendment.
- Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) Civil General Assembly, March 1, 2023, E.2021/771, K.2023/135.
- Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu), Arts. 169, 175–176, 182, 330–331.
- Law No. 7201 on Notification (Tebligat Kanunu), Arts. 7/a and 11.
- Revenue Administration (Gelir İdaresi Başkanlığı), Revaluation Rates; 2025: 25.49 percent, Tax Procedure Law General Communiqué No. 585 (VUK Genel Tebliği). Accessed: October 14, 2026.