Securing child maintenance means asking the court for appropriate security or another protective measure where future payments are endangered. Article 334 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) regulates situations such as maintenance being persistently and insistently left unpaid, preparations to flee, or the reckless spending of assets. The aim is not only to collect accrued debt, but to protect the covering of the child’s future care and education expenses. [1]
The existence of a maintenance ruling does not, by itself, guarantee that payments will be made regularly. Conversely, not every delay justifies blocking all assets indefinitely. The measure requested must be connected to the concrete risk and to the maintenance obligation to be protected. This guide explains, within the legal framework as of 14 October 2026, which risk can be brought before the court with which request.
In which situations does TMK Article 334 apply?
Persistent and insistent non-payment
The law does not set a certain number of overdue months as an automatic threshold. The payment pattern, amounts paid short, previous enforcement proceedings and the conduct of the obligor are evaluated together. For example, making a payment each month only after new enforcement steps is different from a one-off bank delay. The allegation must be explained with dates, amounts and documents. [1]
A genuine decline in the debtor’s ability to pay must also be distinguished from an attitude of not paying. A regular loss of income does not remove the debt by itself; however, it may matter in the adjustment of maintenance and in the assessment of the appropriate type of security. The court must make concrete both the child’s needs and the obligor’s situation. [1]
Preparations to flee
Moving to another city or working abroad is not, by itself, proof of evading maintenance. Concealing one’s residence, rapidly disposing of existing assets, closing payment channels and statements aimed at avoiding enforcement may take on meaning together. The risk in TMK Article 334 should not be presumed from an ordinary change in life circumstances. [1]
Spending or wasting assets
The obligor continuing his or her economic activity is not the same as consuming assets in a way that endangers the child’s livelihood. Where the sale proceeds went, whether income-producing assets were transferred without consideration, and whether expenses are consistent with the financial situation may be investigated. The events presented to the court must show why future maintenance is endangered. [1]
How are accrued maintenance and future maintenance distinguished?
Accrued maintenance consists of installments that have fallen due and remain unpaid. Enforcement proceedings aim at collecting this claim. Security, on the other hand, aims to protect payments that will fall due in the future. The existence of accrued debt may be evidence of future risk; but the table of past debt and the security calculation must be prepared separately. The same amount must not be collected twice under two different names. [1, 2]
Pursuing all installments that have not yet arisen together, as if the whole amount were a debt due today, is not what a request for security amounts to. It must be clear for which period and against which risk the security is requested. The law contains no fixed formula such as "security equal to twelve months of maintenance in every case." [1]
| Instrument | Need it protects | Basic distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Maintenance enforcement proceedings | Collection of maintenance that is due | Performance of the debt that has fallen due |
| TMK Article 332 measures | Protection of needs during the maintenance action | Interim payment or deposit on request |
| TMK Article 333 | The child’s livelihood in a paternity action | The likelihood of paternity being found strong |
| TMK Article 334 security | Future maintenance being endangered | Persistent non-payment or other concrete risks |
| Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK) Article 257 et seq. | Protection of a monetary claim whose conditions are met | Special conditions of precautionary attachment |
The fact that the conditions of one of these instruments are present does not mean the other applies automatically. Precautionary attachment specific to an action for annulment of dispositions under İİK Article 281/2 is also assessed in its own context. [1, 2]
What securities may be requested?
Deposit of money and bank guarantee
Depending on the circumstances, the deposit of a certain amount or a sufficient bank guarantee may be requested for consideration. The nature of the account to be used, the duration of the security, who will benefit and under what condition it will be released should not be left unclear. Depositing money into any private account does not by itself create security accepted by the court. [1, 3]
Personal or in rem security
Personal security and in rem security over immovable property or other assets are different transactions. The validity conditions of the security, the sufficiency of its value, prior encumbrances (takyidat) and, where necessary, its convertibility into money should be examined. An asset that appears valuable but is fully burdened by earlier debts may not provide effective protection for maintenance. [1, 3]
The Council of Europe’s handbook prepared for family courts on maintenance and compensation decisions addresses financial security and other measures under TMK Article 334. The handbook helps to explain that the law does not make the same type of security mandatory for every case; it is not a binding court decision. [3]
Other protective measures
The phrase "other measures" in the law should not be read as unlimited power to intervene. The legal basis of the requested measure and the relationship between the asset on which it will be applied and the child’s claim to be protected must be shown. A restriction that completely stops the generation of income may also remove the source for paying maintenance. The sufficiency of a narrower but effective measure is therefore important. [1, 3]
Can a precautionary measure be placed on immovable property in every maintenance file?
No. The subject matter of the dispute and the protective conditions in Article 389 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) must be taken into account. In its decision of 13 January 2014, E.2013/26233, K.2014/188, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) did not find correct the rejection of an objection to a precautionary measure placed on immovable property that was not the subject of the action, in order to secure possible maintenance and compensation connected with a divorce. [4, 5]
This decision is not one that directly examines a concrete child maintenance risk under TMK Article 334. It therefore cannot be turned into the conclusion that "no asset measure can be taken for child maintenance." What the decision teaches is the distinction of showing the correct legal basis and conditions of the request. A request for a general ban on assets based merely on the filing of a divorce or maintenance action and a proportionate request for security based on the conditions of Article 334 should be assessed separately. [1, 4, 5]
Which documents should be submitted to the court?
The most useful work to make the application concrete is a monthly payment schedule. Each line should show the due date, the amount awarded, the payment date, the amount paid and the shortfall. Bank transactions are compared with collections in the relevant enforcement file. The debt to which an unexplained transfer by a third party relates is shown separately.
If a risk to assets is alleged, land registry and vehicle transfer dates, bank records, sale advertisements and lawfully obtained correspondence may matter. Instead of an unlimited investigation of the entire financial history on the basis of a rumor, requesting information for a specific transaction and period makes the request more comprehensible. As to evidence obtained unlawfully, HMK Article 189/2 is taken into account. [4]
| Allegation | Records that may be submitted | Relationship to be explained |
|---|---|---|
| Persistent short payment | Monthly schedule, receipts, enforcement account | The pattern and continuation of the delays |
| Preparations to flee | Concrete relocation and transfer documents, lawful correspondence | A risk different from an ordinary move |
| Consuming assets | Transfer price, payment trail, change in assets | Effect of the transaction on future maintenance |
| Amount of security | Child’s expenses and calculation of the requested period | Proportionality and sufficiency of the request |
| The debtor’s defense | Payment records, documents of income loss, alternative security | Absence of risk or a lighter measure |
How should the request be framed and to which court should it be directed?
In a dispute arising from child maintenance, the jurisdiction of the family court is the basis; where there is no family court, the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi) designated for the purpose acts as a family court. If a maintenance action is pending, the relationship of requests under TMK Articles 332–334 with that file must be established. If a separate request is necessary, jurisdiction, venue, parties and the state of representation are determined according to the specific file. [1, 6]
The conclusion of the request should clearly state the child to be protected, the existing maintenance ruling, the events constituting the risk, the period of security and the measure requested. For example, instead of simply saying "a precautionary measure on all assets," it should be explained why a measure on a particular asset or amount is needed. If there is a conflict of interest with the child’s representative, the need for a curator for representation (temsil kayyımı) is examined separately. [1]
How should the request for security in the Court of Cassation decision be read?
In the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 22 May 2024, E.2024/2915, K.2024/3726, the plaintiff requested security under TMK Article 334 on account of persistent non-payment and also included the request for security among the grounds of appeal (istinaf). However, the scope of the Court of Cassation’s review and the outcome of the ruling do not lend themselves to presenting this decision as a general decision of acceptance "ordering security for future maintenance." [7]
In the decision, a monetary finality assessment was made in the appeal of the principal maintenance claims, and the part relating to the adjustment of the protocol was reviewed. Accordingly, a request set out in the petition should not be confused with the rule of law accepted by the court. The primary source of the conditions of TMK Article 334 is the law itself. [1, 7]
What should be followed up after a measure is granted?
The scope of the decision, the institution to which it will be applied, whether the security has been established and the obligor’s subsequent payment conduct should be monitored. Security remaining on paper is different from its actually being established. If a bank letter has expired, or if prior charges on the asset indicated have increased, the sufficiency of the protection may again come into question.
When conditions change, adjustment or lifting of the measure may be requested. Objection and appeal are determined according to the nature of the decision under the TMK and the provisional protection provisions of the HMK. A single time limit and a single authority of application should not be assumed for all decisions. [1, 4]
Conclusion
Security for child maintenance requires that past debt and future livelihood risk be addressed together but with separate calculations. A strong application brings together a record of regular payment, a concrete asset risk and an applicable proposal for security. The goal is to establish a sufficient and proportionate measure that will protect the child’s care.
Related articles: Appealing a Maintenance Order: Filing Deadlines, Finality Thresholds and Scope of Review; Transferring Property to Evade Maintenance: Annulment of Dispositions, Simulation and Ways of Collection; Maintenance in Disavowal of Filiation and Paternity Actions: Interim Payment, Finality and Past Payments; What to Do If Maintenance Is Unpaid? Enforcement Proceedings, Accrued Arrears and Coercive Imprisonment.
Frequently Asked Questions
For how many months must maintenance have gone unpaid for security?
TMK Article 334 sets no fixed number of months. Persistent and insistent non-payment, or one of the other risks in the law, is assessed in concrete terms. [1]
Can security be requested even if no debt has accrued?
It may be considered if there are independent risks such as preparations to flee or wasting assets. The accrual of debt in the past is not necessary in every case. [1]
Is security requested only from the father?
The law covers the mother and the father. The request is assessed on the basis of the concrete maintenance obligation and the risk. [1]
Is working abroad sufficient for security?
It should not be regarded as sufficient on its own. The concrete conduct that endangers the payment of maintenance must be explained. [1]
Can a precautionary measure be placed on all immovable property?
There is no automatic right. The legal basis, the concrete risk and proportionality are assessed. A general approach of placing a precautionary measure on property that is not the subject of the action may also raise a separate problem. [4, 5]
Is the amount of security one year of maintenance?
The law provides no fixed annual amount. An amount consistent with the period, the need and the risk must be made concrete. [1]
Does providing security wipe out past maintenance?
No. Security and payment of the debt that has fallen due are separate matters. A collection made earlier, in turn, cannot be demanded again for the same claim. [1, 2]
Can precautionary attachment be requested instead of security?
It may be considered if its own conditions are met. TMK Article 334 and the attachment provisions in the İİK are not identical. [1, 2]
Can the child’s representative make the application?
An application can be made, taking into account the state of the parties and representation. If there is a conflict of interest, whether a curator (kayyım) is needed is assessed separately. [1]
Can the debtor offer lighter security?
Yes, the debtor may explain that there is no risk or that there is sufficient alternative security. The decision must weigh the protection of the child together with the scope of the intervention. [1, 3]
Sources
- Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu), especially Arts. 4, 329–334 and 426.
- Law No. 2004, Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İcra ve İflas Kanunu), Arts. 257–264 and 281.
- Council of Europe, Handbook for Family Courts on Maintenance and Compensation Decisions (Aile Mahkemeleri Nafaka ve Tazminat Kararları El Kitabı), explanation of TMK Article 334, printed p. 9.
- Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), Arts. 189–194, 341, 362 and 389–399.
- Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, 13.01.2014, E.2013/26233, K.2014/188. Concerns the scope of an HMK precautionary measure; it is not a decision accepting TMK Article 334 directly.
- Law No. 4787 on the Establishment, Duties and Trial Procedures of Family Courts, Arts. 2 and 4.
- Court of Cassation 2nd Civil Chamber, 22.05.2024, E.2024/2915, K.2024/3726. Reviewed for the distinction between the request and the scope of the ruling.