Reducing or ending maintenance is not achieved simply by saying that payments have become difficult. First the type of maintenance, the existing decision and the later changes in circumstances must be identified. In poverty maintenance, some events end the obligation automatically, while others require a court decision. In child maintenance and education maintenance, the child's age, needs and education, and the financial capacity of the parents come to the fore. Filing a lawsuit does not by itself stop the current payments. [1 m.176, 328, 331; 4 m.344]
This article is based on the rules in force and the relevant decisions as of October 13, 2026. It explains separately when reduction, complete termination, automatic expiry and objection to enforcement calculations may arise.
The difference between reduction, termination and automatic expiry
What is the subject of a reduction action?
In a reduction action the maintenance obligation continues; the request is that the monthly amount be lowered to match the new circumstances. In poverty maintenance, the change in the parties' financial situation or equity is assessed; in child maintenance, the changed need and the capacity to pay are assessed. The circumstances at the time of the earlier decision must be compared with those at the time of the lawsuit. The distinction between the types of maintenance is summarized separately in the article types of maintenance and their conditions. [1 m.176/4, 330–331]
For example, a reduction in the capacity to work due to a serious and lasting health problem may be a new fact to be investigated. By contrast, presenting expenses that already existed and were known when the maintenance was set as if they were new does not have the same effect. The court assesses together whether the change is real, how serious it is and the position of the maintenance creditor. [1 m.2, 4, 176; 5–6]
What does a termination decision change?
Termination means that the court ends the relevant maintenance obligation. Article 176(3) of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) provides for termination by court decision in the case of poverty maintenance paid as periodic income (irat), where the creditor lives as if married, where the poverty has ended, or where, in the words of the law, the creditor leads a dishonourable life. Raising these grounds and proving them are different matters. [1]
Where the conditions for complete termination have not been met, it may still be argued that the amount is too high. For this reason, the operative part of the claim must state clearly the main request and any alternative request for reduction. A lawsuit should not be filed on the assumption that the court will complete any missing request on its own. For the party who believes the amount is too low, a maintenance increase lawsuit is a separate route. [2 m.26, 31, 119]
In which cases is a separate termination decision not required?
Poverty maintenance paid as periodic income (irat) ends by operation of law when the creditor remarries or when either party dies. Here it matters that the person who remarries is the maintenance creditor. Remarriage by the maintenance debtor does not produce the same automatic result. Instalments that fell due before the end date and remained unpaid are assessed separately. [1 m.176/3]
In child maintenance (participation maintenance), the child reaching adulthood is another reason for termination. In the decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi) dated November 17, 2016, E.2016/4171, K.2016/12901, it was held that there is no legal interest in filing a separate lawsuit to terminate child maintenance that has ended automatically on the child's adulthood. Where the dispute arises from enforcement proceedings, the appropriate enforcement law remedy is assessed. If education is continuing, the adult child's own maintenance claim is separate from this. The adult child's new claim based on education is examined in the article maintenance after 18. [7]
| Event | Initial legal assessment | Generalization to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Remarriage of the poverty maintenance creditor | Statutory termination and documenting the date | Old instalments are also erased. |
| Remarriage of the debtor | Changed actual obligations and financial capacity | A new marriage automatically ends maintenance. |
| Creditor starting work | Whether the income removes the poverty | Every entry in the social security records ends maintenance. |
| Claim of living as if married | Concrete facts and lawful evidence | Any friendship or photograph is sufficient. |
| Child reaching adulthood | End of child maintenance and separate education claim | Parents' entire support obligation ends. |
| Temporary drop in income | Duration, cause, other income and need | Every fall in income requires full termination. |
Do unemployment, retirement and illness reduce maintenance?
The duration and cause of the income loss
Loss of earnings due to dismissal, retirement or health reasons may be relied on as grounds for a reduction request, but the outcome is not automatic. The new net income, severance or retirement payments, other sources such as rent, the possibility of working and mandatory expenses are assessed together. Deciding solely on the basis of the debtor's single income source, while disregarding the creditor's continuing needs, does not make a proper comparison. [1 m.176, 330–331]
The position of a person who reduces income by their own choice is not the same as that of a person whose work has become difficult because of illness. The principle of honesty does not protect the concealment of real economic capacity in order to avoid the obligation. However, it is also wrong to treat unemployment or illness as bad faith in advance; the assessment must be made on the basis of the facts and documents. [1 m.2, 4; 2 m.190, 194]
New marriage and other children
The debtor's statutory duties of support within a new family may matter in assessing financial capacity. However, a new spouse or a new child does not by itself remove the earlier child's needs or the current maintenance decision for the former spouse. The scope of each obligation, the contribution actually made and the total capacity to pay must be made concrete. [1 m.176, 185–186, 327–331]
It is not appropriate to present optional high spending after a new marriage as if it were mandatory expense. Likewise, the creditor cannot assume unlimited capacity to pay by ignoring the debtor's statutory obligations to other children. The court's assessment is based on comparing the real circumstances of both parties and of the children. [1 m.176, 185–186, 327–331]
Is it enough for the maintenance recipient to work or acquire property?
Earning income and the end of poverty
For poverty maintenance, the essential test is whether the creditor has reached an economic level at which they can meet the needs necessary to sustain their life. The regularity of earnings, their net amount, rent and health costs, and whether the property obtained produces income are all important. A record of employment alone does not always amount to a sufficient basis for assessment. [1 m.175–176]
For example, a few months of temporary work and regular, sufficient earnings may have different economic effects, as may a home in which the creditor lives and a property that generates high rent. In a claim of inheritance or acquisition of property too, its value, usability and yield must be investigated. A party seeking reduction or termination must explain not only that the asset exists but how it affects the outcome. [1 m.4, 176; 2 m.190, 194]
Whose income matters in child maintenance
The fact that the parent caring for the child works does not remove the other parent's participation maintenance obligation. The child's expenses, the two parents' capacity to pay and their actual contributions are assessed together. For an adult child, the child's own regular income, education and needs are also important. [1 m.182, 328, 330, 364–365]
For this reason the case should make clear whose poverty, whose income and which maintenance are being discussed. Treating the poverty maintenance owed to a former spouse and the maintenance paid for a child as a single item risks transferring a change in one to the other. [1 m.182, 328, 330, 364–365]
How is living as if married proven?
Is the existence of a relationship alone sufficient?
The criterion in TMK Article 176 is not merely an emotional relationship or social closeness. The court examines, in the light of the whole concrete case, whether a shared life resembling marriage has been established. An assumption that a person meets someone else does not by itself show that the statutory condition has been met. [1; 5]
In the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 2. Hukuk Dairesi) dated June 29, 2020, E.2020/1980, K.2020/3397, the majority found, in a file containing social media posts, hotel records and evidence of spending time together, that concrete and convincing proof of living together as if married had not been established. The termination decision was therefore reversed. The dissenting opinion considered that the evidence was sufficient and stated its view in favour of affirmance. [5]
The importance of the decision is not that such records are always worthless. The same evidence, combined with other facts, may lead to a different result. The real question is whether there are complete facts proving the continuity and nature of the alleged shared life. A single decision should not be used as a rigid list classifying every kind of relationship. [5]
The limits of privacy when gathering evidence
Facts a witness knows directly must be separated from what they heard from others. Relevant records may be requested through the court; however, unauthorised entry into a private account, covert surveillance or unlawful means of obtaining data are not a legitimate evidential strategy. Article 189(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) provides that evidence obtained unlawfully cannot be taken into account. [2]
The statutory ground of "living a dishonourable life" likewise cannot be reduced to personal disapproval, criticism of a lifestyle or the establishment of a new relationship. The claimant must explain which concrete facts constitute which statutory ground, and must rely on lawfully obtained evidence that affects the outcome, rather than on abstract or demeaning accusations. [1 m.176; 2 m.190, 194]
Can maintenance in consensual divorce and foreign-currency payments be changed?
Binding force of the protocol and later changed circumstances
A protocol approved by the court does not become ineffective merely because the debtor later does not want it. However, maintenance paid as periodic income under a protocol may also be reassessed when statutory conditions arise. The earlier balance, foreseeable risks and the gravity of the later change must be examined. [1 m.2, 166, 176; 5–6]
The debtor should not be satisfied with listing the income and expenses known at the time of signing; they must show what has changed since. The creditor also cannot assume that the amount agreed in the protocol can never be changed under any circumstances. The justification for the request is the concrete difference between the conditions under which the agreement was made and the present conditions.
Is a rise in the exchange rate alone a ground for termination?
In the decision of the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated November 18, 2025, E.2024/8651, K.2025/9784, the termination of poverty maintenance fixed in the protocol at 2,000 US dollars per month was examined. In the case, where an earlier termination action had been dismissed, it was stated that an unusual and unforeseeable change in financial circumstances had not been proven; the appreciation of the foreign currency was not considered sufficient on its own for termination. [6]
This decision does not mean that foreign-currency maintenance can never be changed under any circumstances. The currency in which the debtor's income is received, the debtor's other earnings, the distribution of risk in the earlier agreement and the weight of the concrete change are all important. An increase in the Turkish lira equivalent and a change in the debtor's capacity to pay, of a kind that legally requires adjustment, are not the same claim.
Does filing a lawsuit stop payment and coercive imprisonment?
The existing decision continues to have effect
Filing a reduction or termination action does not by itself remove the effect of the existing judgment. The debtor cannot unilaterally change the court decision by paying a lower amount of their own choosing. Any interim legal protection requested, and any decision given, are assessed separately for the enforcement file. The limits on suspending enforcement in maintenance decisions are discussed separately in the article suspension of enforcement (tehiri icra). [1 m.176, 331; 4 m.344]
Under Article 344(2) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK), coercive imprisonment may be deferred until the end of a reduction or termination action, taking into account the grounds raised in that action. This provision cannot be read as meaning that a debtor is automatically freed from enforcement and payment upon filing a petition. The routes for unpaid maintenance are explained together in the article what to do if maintenance is not paid. [4]
What distinction do the 2025 and 2026 decisions show?
In the decision of the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi) dated January 14, 2025, E.2024/6854, K.2025/131, it was accepted that a separate reduction action which affects the outcome must be treated as a preliminary question requiring a stay of proceedings. The decision determined concretely that the reduction file was pending at the time of the enforcement criminal decision. [8]
By contrast, in the decision of the same Chamber dated January 20, 2026, E.2026/227, K.2026/222, income investigation carried out within a divorce file was not treated as equivalent to an independent reduction action. For this reason the request for an appeal in the interest of the law was rejected. Read together, the two decisions show that which request is pending in which file changes the consequences for enforcement. [9]
How are the start date and past payments treated?
Is the lawsuit date always the reference point?
The date of the lawsuit is an important starting point for a reduction request; however, it is wrong to tie all grounds of termination to the same date. In the case of statutory termination, such as the creditor's remarriage, the date of the event matters; where a court decision is required, the periods set by the claim and the decision matter. The adulthood of a child, or a change in need after education, is also assessed according to its own legal nature. [1 m.176, 328; 7]
For this reason, the petition should not simply say "the maintenance should be terminated"; it should state from which date and on which ground the result is sought. Once the operative part of the judgment is seen, how the old and new periods will be reflected in the enforcement calculation is determined. An account that retroactively disregards the existing decision must not be made unilaterally. [2 m.26, 119, 297]
Can paid maintenance be recovered automatically?
A decision to terminate or reduce maintenance does not mean that all past payments are automatically refunded. Which period the payment belongs to, the decision in force at that time, the legal ground for the end of the obligation and the basis of any claim for recovery are examined separately. The future effect of a new judgment and a claim for past payments are different matters. Where money paid through enforcement is to be recovered, the article restitution of enforced payments (icranın iadesi) may also be examined. [1 m.176, 328; 2 m.26, 297] For details on the subject see Can Overpaid Maintenance Be Recovered?.
If the enforcement file contains a claim for the wrong period, the account may be corrected through the appropriate complaint or objection. A claim in enforcement for an obligation that has in fact already ended is not the same litigation strategy as a first request for reduction based on an economic change. Complaint routes against actions in the enforcement file are explained in the article complaints against enforcement office actions. [4 m.16, 33; 7]
Did the 2026 Constitutional Court decision automatically terminate existing maintenance?
No. The decision of the Constitutional Court dated June 4, 2026, E.2025/156, K.2026/131 concerns the phrase "indefinitely" ("süresiz olarak") in TMK Article 175(1). The decision was published in the Official Gazette on September 30, 2026, and the effect of the annulment was postponed for nine months. The date of entry into force is therefore June 30, 2027. As of October 13, 2026, the decision does not mean that all existing maintenance has ended or that payments can be stopped immediately. [10]
The decision did not remove every type of maintenance, nor did it introduce a common five-year period for every marriage. The scope of the annulment, the postponed effective date and any later statutory regulation must be kept distinct. The effect of existing decisions and pending lawsuits is assessed within the procedural framework relating to Articles 152–153 of the Constitution; a future regulation cannot be presented as if it were already certain. [10–11]
This recent development does not remove the need for the person seeking reduction or termination to show a concrete lawsuit ground. Existing statutory grounds, such as remarriage, the end of poverty or a change in financial circumstances, must still be investigated for their counterpart in the file. [1 m.176]
In which court is the lawsuit filed and how is it prepared?
Jurisdiction, competence and parties
The family court has jurisdiction; where there is no family court, the competent civil court of first instance acts as a family court. In maintenance lawsuits after divorce, Article 177 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) and the general rules on venue are examined together with the type of maintenance. For support maintenance, the special venue rule in Article 365 of the TMK is also important. [1; 2 m.6; 3 m.2, 4]
The claimant is usually the maintenance debtor. The respondent must be identified correctly according to the person who is the true beneficiary of the claim sought to be terminated or reduced. The child's adulthood may change capacity to sue and standing as a party. An obligation enforced on behalf of a child in respect of a former spouse's own poverty maintenance should not be treated as if it were the same party arrangement. [1 m.329, 335, 365; 2 m.50–52]
Evidence must show both the old and new situation
In preparing the case, collect the earlier decision and any protocol, the earlier income position, new wage or pension records, health documents, mandatory expenses and documents showing the ground for termination that is relied on. If an asset or income investigation is requested, state which record will clarify which claim. [2 m.190, 194, 318]
Under the simplified procedure, the period for a response is as a rule two weeks from service; an additional period may be requested under the statutory conditions. The defendant must support their defence, that the change is not real, that it was known when the first decision was made or that their own need continues, with the relevant documents. A comparison based on lawful evidence is more informative than both parties merely making personal allegations. [2 m.316–319]
Costs and review of the decision
Court costs, fees, notification costs, an expert's fee where necessary and the attorney's fee are assessed according to the concrete claim. Whether the action is accepted, partly accepted or rejected may affect the costs. Where the conditions for legal aid are met, an application may be made. The availability of an appeal is checked by reference to the nature of the decision, the enforceable monetary limit and the date of service. [2 m.323–326, 334–340, 341, 345, 361–362]
Conclusion
In reducing or ending maintenance, the decisive question is not "do I want to pay?" but which legal and economic change affecting the existing obligation has occurred. It is necessary to identify the type of maintenance, the ground for the end of the obligation and the correct procedural route, and to document the earlier and current circumstances. While the lawsuit is pending, the payment obligation and the enforcement and criminal process may continue, and this must be taken into account.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does maintenance fall away automatically if I become unemployed?
No. The cause and duration of the unemployment, other income and the creditor's need are examined. A suitable legal request is required to change the current amount. [1 m.176, 331]
Does retirement end maintenance?
Retirement alone is not an automatic ground for termination. The actual capacity to pay after retirement and the other circumstances are assessed. [1]
What happens if the former spouse receiving maintenance remarries?
Poverty maintenance paid as periodic income (irat) ends by operation of law. Debts arising before the remarriage are assessed separately. [1 m.176/3]
Does the debtor's marriage have the same effect?
No. A new marriage is not an automatic ground for termination; it may be relevant to the assessment of the actual financial circumstances. [1 m.176]
Is it enough that the former spouse has started a job?
Not in every case. It is investigated whether the income is of a nature to remove the poverty and what the essential needs are. [1 m.175–176]
Can maintenance be terminated with social media photographs?
The context of the photograph and other lawful evidence are important. In the 2020 decision the majority accepted that living together as if married had not been sufficiently proven in the concrete file. [5]
Can maintenance be terminated because the exchange rate has risen?
A rise in the exchange rate alone is not sufficient in every case. In the decision of November 18, 2025, termination was not found appropriate because the concrete financial change was not proven. [6]
Can I pay a lower amount once I file a reduction action?
Filing the action does not by itself change the current amount. The court decision and any temporary protective effect must be examined separately. [1; 4 m.344]
Does a reduction action affect coercive imprisonment?
A reduction or termination action with an effect on the outcome may be assessed under Article 344(2) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK). This does not mean that every petition has an automatic suspensive effect. [8–9]
Is a termination lawsuit mandatory when the child turns 18?
Child maintenance (participation maintenance) as a rule ends automatically on the child's adulthood. If education is continuing, the adult child's independent claim arises; any existing enforcement dispute is dealt with separately. [7]
Did the Constitutional Court decision end all maintenance?
No. The decision concerns a specific phrase and the annulment will take effect on June 30, 2027. As of October 13, 2026, there is no result that automatically stops all existing payments. [10–11]
Are all past payments recovered when termination is decided?
Not automatically. The relevant period, the legal ground, the effect of the decision and any claim for recovery are assessed separately. [1; 2 m.26, 297]
Sources and legal bases
- Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medeni Kanunu), in particular Articles 2, 4, 166, 175–177, 182, 185–186, 327–331, 335, 364–365. Official text.
- Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Articles 6, 26, 31, 50–52, 119, 189–194, 297, 316–319, 323–326, 334–345, 361–362. Official text.
- Law No. 4787 on the Establishment, Duties and Trial Procedures of Family Courts (Aile Mahkemelerinin Kuruluş, Görev ve Yargılama Usullerine Dair Kanun), Articles 2 and 4. Official text.
- Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu), in particular Articles 16, 33, 344. Official text.
- 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 2. Hukuk Dairesi), June 29, 2020, E.2020/1980, K.2020/3397; proof of shared life, protocol maintenance and dissenting opinion. Full text on UYAP.
- 2nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 2. Hukuk Dairesi), November 18, 2025, E.2024/8651, K.2025/9784; foreign-currency maintenance and unproven unusual change. Full decision as published by Kanun Yolu.
- 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi), November 17, 2016, E.2016/4171, K.2016/12901; legal interest in child maintenance ended by adulthood. Full text on UYAP.
- 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi), January 14, 2025, E.2024/6854, K.2025/131; separate reduction action affecting the outcome and stay of proceedings. Full text on UYAP.
- 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi), January 20, 2026, E.2026/227, K.2026/222; difference between income investigation within divorce and an independent reduction action. Full text on UYAP.
- Constitutional Court, June 4, 2026, E.2025/156, K.2026/131; Official Gazette, September 30, 2026, issue 33386; annulment of the phrase in TMK Article 175(1) and nine-month postponement of entry into force. Official decision PDF.
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Articles 152–153. Official text.