The child reaching the age of 18 does not mean that the parents' support obligations have all come to an end. Child maintenance (iştirak nafakası) as a rule ends with majority; however, an adult child who continues education may ask his or her parents for support if the conditions are met. This claim is not an automatic and indefinite continuation of the old child maintenance within the same case. Education, need, the child's income and the financial capacity of the parents are assessed together. [1 Art. 328, 364–365; 4–7]
This guide explains, as of 13 October 2026, the right of a university student to bring a claim, the costs that may be covered, and the events that affect the continuation of maintenance. For every adult student, payment should not be assumed to continue automatically, and no common end age should be assumed across all files.
Why does child maintenance not continue in the same way after 18?
Majority, representation and a new claim
Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (TMK) Article 328(1) regulates the continuation of the parents' duty of care until the child reaches majority. The second paragraph of the same article provides, for an adult child who continues education, support that can be expected from the parent to the extent appropriate under the circumstances. The distinction between acting on the child's behalf on the basis of parental custody (velayet) after majority and the child exercising his or her own right becomes important. [1 Art. 10–13, 328, 335]
In its decision of 3 May 2016, E.2014/25580, K.2016/8179, the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 8. Hukuk Dairesi) held that child maintenance ends automatically upon majority and that, where education continues, the child may bring a new action. In the case concerned, it was not considered appropriate to enforce post-18 support on the basis of the old judgment. [7]
For this reason, merely adding a student certificate to the old enforcement file does not, in every case, provide a sufficient legal basis for the new period. The scope of the old judgment, any separately established obligation of support after majority, and the holder of the new claim should be assessed. Instalments that fell due before majority but remain unpaid are not erased by reaching majority; they are calculated separately from a new education claim. For enforcing an old judgment, see the article judgments enforceable before becoming final. [1 Art. 328; 7]
Can a parent bring the action in his or her own name?
An adult child with legal capacity to sue either asserts his or her own claim personally or pursues it through a lawyer under a power of attorney given by the child. Living in the same home as the child does not restore the former custody authority to the mother or father. If there is guardianship (vesayet) or another special form of representation, these are examined separately. [1 Art. 10–13, 335; 2 Art. 50–52]
The fact that the other parent meets the child's housing and day-to-day care in practice is important in assessing the amount. However, this contribution should not be confused with the standing to claim: the adult child's claim for maintenance is brought in the child's own right. When the party to the claim and the right being asserted are stated clearly, the question of economic need can be discussed within the correct procedure.
Are education maintenance and support maintenance the same concept?
TMK Article 328(2) is a special provision on care for an adult child who continues education. TMK Article 364, on the other hand, sets out the broader duty between certain relatives who would fall into poverty without support. In practice, an adult student's claim is often described as "support maintenance" (yardım nafakası), and the two provisions are considered together. The scope of support maintenance and its relationship with other types is summarised in the article types of maintenance and their conditions. [1; 4–6]
In the 2021 academic study by Derya Ateş, the duty of care extended by education is distinguished from general support maintenance, and the systematic position and special nature of TMK Article 328(2) are emphasised. The practical approach of the Court of Cassation, which applies the two provisions together, should not be presented as the same view as this academic assessment. For the reader, the result is that the action should rest not only on its label but on the facts of education, need and financial capacity. [8, pp. 180–186]
This distinction matters in particular where education has ended but support is needed for another reason. For example, the claim of an adult who cannot meet his or her livelihood because of a health problem may be examined under TMK Articles 364–365, independently of university enrolment. On the other hand, not being a student does not mean that unlimited support can be claimed from the parents in every case. [1]
Under what conditions is a university student's maintenance claim assessed?
Education must be real and ongoing
A certificate of enrolment is important as a starting point, but it alone does not answer every question. The department, year of enrolment, preparatory period, course status, attendance, expected graduation and, where present, the reason for an extended period should be explained. In this way it becomes clear not merely that a registration exists, but whether education is actually being pursued. The continuation of education under TMK Article 328(2) and the criteria of support that can be expected from the parent are applied together. [1]
Not every delay in education is bad faith. A health problem, a compulsory preparatory year or the nature of the programme may be explained. On the other hand, for a registration that has not been pursued for a long time, reliance on the student certificate alone may not be sufficient. Which period is reasonable cannot be determined by a single number of years without seeing the details of the case. [1 Art. 2, 4, 328]
Need and the parent's ability to pay are examined together
A maintenance claim should set out the student's need for education and livelihood. Housing, food, study materials, transport and health expenses should be shown together with scholarships, wages or other sources. The parent's financial capacity is not reduced to a single payslip either; regular other income and compulsory obligations are examined. [1 Art. 328, 330, 365]
A past dispute between the mother and father does not replace the calculation of the child's need. Nor is the absence of contact with the child, or the weakening of family ties, by itself a general reason that removes the whole duty of support. The Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), in its decisions of 2015 and 2019, dealt separately with the weakening of family bonds and the statutory duty of support. [4–5]
Can the mother also be liable for maintenance?
Yes. The law does not place the duty of care and education solely on the father. What contribution can be expected from which parent is assessed on the basis of actual financial capacity and the support actually provided. When one parent provides housing, food and day-to-day care, this is an economic contribution; a bank transfer alone is not the only form of contribution. [1 Art. 327–328, 330, 365]
The fact that the student lives with one parent does not mean the other parent will automatically cover all expenses. Likewise, there is no general rule requiring the parents to share all expenses equally. The claim should be prepared so as to show the actual situation of both sides.
How are open education, a second education and a master's degree assessed?
Can a student in open education receive maintenance?
Open education is not, by itself, a ground for rejecting the claim. In its decision of 13 March 2015, E.2013/1627, K.2015/1020, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation examined the case of a young person who, after completing a two-year vocational college, continued a four-year programme. It was established that the student's irregular and low earnings did not cover education and living costs; full rejection of the maintenance claim was not held to be appropriate. [4]
In that decision, the minority view found the first-instance reasoning for rejection sufficient. The majority focused on the continuation of education and the insufficiency of income. The decision does not mean that every open education enrolment necessarily gives rise to maintenance. The relationship of the education to prior studies, the real need and the level of earnings from work remain important. [4]
Does a second university or a change of department provide unlimited support?
No. Completing an associate degree into a bachelor's degree, continuing a first vocational training, or turning to different studies for health reasons is not the same as pursuing an unrelated new department after economic independence. The place of the claim within the education process and what can be expected from the parent should be explained. The special education process addressed in the 2015 General Assembly decision cannot be applied verbatim to every second-diploma claim. [1 Art. 328; 4]
In such cases, in addition to the enrolment certificate, the previous diploma, transfer conditions, the status of current courses and the purpose of the new education may be presented. The other side may argue that the student has a regular and sufficient income, or that the link with education has weakened. The assessment should not be made merely by the label "second university". [2 Art. 190, 194, 318]
What is the position for a master's and doctoral degree?
There is no general and unconditional maintenance guarantee for postgraduate study. The relationship of the education to the acquisition of a profession, the student's present qualifications, income and the parents' means are assessed. Ateş's study presents different approaches on the scope of a master's degree and more restrictive views on doctorates. This debate prevents accepting the same result for every postgraduate programme. [8, pp. 189–192]
Do a scholarship, an internship or work end maintenance?
Not every income has the same effect
A partial scholarship, a repayable student loan, irregular additional earnings and a steady full-time wage are not the same economic resource. The nature and amount of the resource, its continuity, and which expenses it covers should be explained. It cannot be said that a claim will be rejected automatically merely because the student, while still in need, earns limited income. [1 Art. 328, 330, 365; 4]
In the 2015 General Assembly decision, irregular earnings from playing music at weddings were not considered sufficient for the student's education and livelihood. It does not follow from this that a working student always receives maintenance. The assessment may change if the need would disappear to the extent that the work is steady and sufficient. [4–5]
What does the decision on post-graduation KPSS preparation say?
In its decision of 14 November 2019, E.2018/904, K.2019/1181, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation examined the maintenance of an adult child who, after graduating from university, attended a KPSS preparation course and had no regular income. The Assembly found that support was needed on the date of the action; however, it also found that, after the employment began during the proceedings, the need had ended. It was concluded that, in the case concerned, maintenance should be lifted from the date of employment, 23 May 2016. [5]
This decision shows both the continuation and the ending of support. Graduation may not end the entire need on the same day in every case; however, any job search activity does not create a claim for maintenance of indefinite duration. The connection of the course to the profession, the reality of the preparation, the income situation and later changing facts should be assessed together. [1 Art. 328, 364–365; 5]
Is there an age-25 limit for education maintenance?
TMK Article 328(2) does not set a fixed upper age that ends maintenance for everyone at 25. The continuation of education, the nature of the conditions and the support that can be expected from the parent are the basis. Age limits found in social security, student insurance or scholarship regulations cannot be applied directly as the limit of maintenance under family law. [1]
In the 2019 General Assembly decision, the claimant father sought the removal of maintenance from the date the child reached age 25. The Assembly did not tie the outcome solely to that age; it assessed education, need and the later start of work. For this reason, concrete examination independent of chronological age is important. [5]
Nonetheless, the absence of a fixed upper age does not mean that enrolment as a student gives a lifelong right to support. The education process, reasonable progress, real need and financial capacity are examined. The obligor and the student should document these facts rather than argue for a definite result based on age alone. [1 Art. 2, 4, 328, 365]
How should a university student's expenses be calculated?
Education and living expenses should be presented together
Stating only the tuition fee may not fully show the need of a student living in another city. Dormitory or rent share, food, transport, books, the period of use of study equipment such as a computer, and health expenses can also be considered. On the other hand, writing the whole family home's expenses against the student, or adding the cost of a one-off item to every month, does not produce a realistic result. [1 Art. 328, 330, 365]
The table below is not a court tariff or a suggested maintenance amount. It is a hypothetical budget that only shows how expenses and resources may be divided. The amount to be claimed does not follow automatically from this table; the parents' means and their actual contributions are assessed separately.
| Monthly item | Hypothetical amount | Calculation note |
|---|---|---|
| Housing | 8,000 TL | The student's real share |
| Food | 5,000 TL | If in-kind support exists, it is shown separately. |
| Transport and communication | 2,000 TL | Expenses related to education and daily life |
| Books, materials and other compulsory education expenses | 3,000 TL | Annual expense converted to a monthly figure. |
| Health and other compulsory expenses | 2,000 TL | Documented real need |
| Total expenses | 20,000 TL | Hypothetical total |
| Non-repayable scholarship | 3,000 TL | Resource available in the same period |
| Gap before other contributions | 17,000 TL | Not a maintenance ruling or a compulsory parental share. |
Choosing a private university or education abroad
The existence of high tuition fees does not mean that the whole of that fee is automatically charged to the other parent. The student's educational path, available means, scholarships and discounts, obligations previously undertaken and the family's economic circumstances are important. The criterion of what can be expected under TMK Article 328(2) applies here too. [1]
Where the education is abroad or the claim is against a parent living abroad, international jurisdiction, applicable law, service and enforcement must be assessed separately. Not all of these problems can be solved within a student budget based in Türkiye. On the subject, the guide Maintenance Increase Action Against a Parent Living Abroad addresses the international distinctions. Collection of child maintenance from a parent abroad is separately addressed in the article collecting child maintenance from a mother or father living abroad.
Where and against whom is the action filed?
The family court and place of residence
The competent court is the family court; where there is no family court, the civil court of first instance acts as a family court by statutory designation. For support maintenance, TMK Article 365(6) makes the court of the residence of one of the parties competent. The legal nature of the claim and any objection to jurisdiction should be clearly assessed in the file. [1; 3 Art. 2, 4] A similar distinction is discussed in the article Where and How to File a Maintenance Lawsuit?.
In its decision of 6 November 2023, E.2023/4275, K.2023/10265, the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 5. Hukuk Dairesi), in a jurisdiction-determination ruling, applied TMK Article 365(6) to an adult child's claim for maintenance for education and held that the family court of the claimant child's place of residence was competent. The first court's different reasoning on jurisdiction in that decision should not be confused with the Court of Cassation's final result. [6]
Should the claim be directed at one parent or both?
Depending on the obligation and the needs assessment, the claim may be directed at the mother, the father or, where the conditions are met, both. The fact that a claim is made against one parent does not mean that the other parent's income and actual contribution are insignificant. TMK Article 365 provides for separate consideration of cases in which requiring payment from certain obligors would be inequitable. [1]
The same rules cannot be assumed to apply verbatim to other relatives such as siblings. In general support maintenance there are different conditions, such as the order of relatives and the prosperity of siblings. The scope of the claims that could be directed at all relatives is not the same as a university student's claim against parents. [1 Art. 364–365]
How should the petition and document file be prepared?
Records the student should submit
The student certificate, transcript or records showing the progress of education, housing documents, education invoices, scholarship and loan information, the payslip if any, and a realistic monthly budget should be prepared together. If there is an earlier maintenance decision, the periods before and after majority should be presented separately. The other parent's in-kind and cash contributions should also be explained. [2 Art. 119, 190, 194, 318]
The amount claimed per month and its start date should be stated clearly. It should not be assumed that all expenses before the filing date are automatically recovered through the new maintenance action. Where past specific expenses or a claim based on a separate contract are sought, their legal basis must be established separately. The court assesses the claim and the facts together. Where an existing maintenance is to be increased, the criteria in the article Maintenance Increase Lawsuit should also be observed. [2 Art. 26, 31, 119; 4]
Defences and documents the parent may submit
A parent may document his or her income and compulsory expenses, other statutory maintenance obligations, education payments made directly, or the child's sufficient regular income. The statement "they are already an adult" is not by itself a complete answer to the claim of education and need. Likewise, a child cannot justify an amount beyond the parent's real capacity to pay merely by saying that they are a student. [1 Art. 328, 365; 4–5]
In an independent maintenance action, the simplified procedure applies. The response period is, as a rule, two weeks from service, and an additional period may be granted under the legal conditions and when requested within the period. Both parties should submit their evidence stating the event to which each piece relates. [2 Art. 316–319]
Support and costs during the action
If a temporary payment or other protective measure is requested, its legal basis, the urgent need and the specific conditions should be explained for the court's assessment. A student certificate is not an automatic interim payment order. Measures under TMK Article 332 and the legal nature of the claim are assessed together. [1; 2 Art. 389 et seq.]
A person who cannot meet litigation costs may assess the conditions for legal aid under Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK) Article 334 et seq. No general guarantee can be given regarding the duration of the action or the amount of a single cost item. Service, financial inquiry and obtaining documents affect the process. The possibility of appeal should also be examined in light of the nature of the decision, the limits of enforceability and the date of service. [2]
When does maintenance end, and what happens if payment is not made?
Completion of education, the disappearance of need, the acquisition of regular and sufficient income, or changes in financial circumstances may bring the existing maintenance under reconsideration. What type of maintenance the judgment concerns, and what termination condition it contains, is important. A common result cannot be drawn for all files merely from a graduation certificate or a first insurance registration. The route to follow when financial circumstances change is explained in the article Reducing and Ending Maintenance. [1 Art. 328, 331, 364–365; 5]
In the 2019 General Assembly decision, the date of the start of employment that eliminated the need was taken as the decisive point. This result does not mean that every short internship or temporary job has the same effect. The student and the parent should document the facts that have changed and assess, through the proper procedure, how the existing decision is affected. [5]
Where education or support maintenance is not paid, enforcement proceedings may be carried out in a manner appropriate to the nature of the decision. For coercive imprisonment, the decision, the enforcement proceedings, the service, the current instalments and the conditions for a complaint must also be established separately. The fact that the person has passed the age of 18 does not mean that a maintenance debt set by the court has no sanction. For enforcement proceedings and coercive imprisonment, the article What to Do If Maintenance Is Unpaid? contains detailed information. [9 Art. 344–347]
Conclusion
The most important distinction after the age of 18 is between the ended child maintenance and the adult child's own claim based on education and need. The student must actually continue education and explain expenses and income; the parent must also be able to document his or her financial capacity and existing contributions. No single factor, such as open education, graduation, work or the age of 25, produces a definitive result without an examination of the whole file.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the old child maintenance continue automatically when a child goes to university?
As a rule, no. Child maintenance ends upon majority; an adult child who continues education may make his or her own claim. The special scope of the existing judgment is examined separately. [1 Art. 328; 7]
Can my mother file the action in my place?
The claim of a person with adult legal capacity is asserted in his or her own name. Living with the mother does not continue the former custody authority; a child's power of attorney is required for the claim to be pursued through a lawyer. [2 Art. 50–52]
Can maintenance also be claimed against the mother?
Yes. The responsibility of both parents is assessed within their financial capacity and the concrete circumstances. The obligation does not belong to the father alone. [1 Art. 327–328, 365]
Does maintenance always end at 25?
TMK Article 328(2) does not set such a fixed upper age. The criteria of education, need and the support that can be expected are applied. [1; 5]
Can an open education student receive maintenance?
If the conditions are met, yes. Open education is not by itself a ground for refusal; the education process, need and income are assessed together. [4]
Does receiving a scholarship end maintenance?
The amount of the scholarship and the expenses it covers are important. A limited scholarship does not show by itself that the whole need has ended. [1 Art. 328, 330, 365]
Can a working student claim maintenance?
It is assessed according to the regularity and sufficiency of the income. Irregular low earnings and a steady income that sustains a person's livelihood are not the same. [4–5]
Can support continue during KPSS preparation?
It can, under concrete conditions. The 2019 General Assembly decision assessed separately the preparation period and later employment that eliminated the need. [5]
Does everyone doing a master's degree receive maintenance?
No. The relationship between education and acquiring a profession, need and financial capacity are assessed; there are different legal approaches on the subject. [1 Art. 328; 8]
Does not speaking with my father prevent maintenance?
The weakening of family ties is not by itself a general ground that removes the statutory duty of support. All conditions of the claim are examined separately. [4–5]
Can the action be filed where I live?
For support maintenance, TMK Article 365(6) makes the court of the residence of one of the parties competent. The decision of 6 November 2023 held that the court of the child's place of residence was competent in a claim for education. [6]
Does all maintenance definitely end on the day I graduate?
The nature of the judgment and the concrete circumstances must be examined. Transition to a profession after education, need and the income situation may affect the result; in the 2019 decision, the date of employment was decisive. [5]
Are old maintenance debts erased at 18?
No. The collection of debts that arose before majority and the new claim for the later period are separate matters. [7]
Sources and legal bases
- Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medeni Kanunu), in particular Arts. 2, 4, 10–13, 327–332, 335, 364–365. Official text.
- Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Arts. 26, 31, 50–52, 119, 190, 194, 316–319, 334 et seq., 341, 345, 361–362, 389 et seq. Official text.
- Law No. 4787 on the Establishment, Duties and Trial Procedures of Family Courts (Aile Mahkemelerinin Kuruluş, Görev ve Yargılama Usullerine Dair Kanun), Arts. 2 and 4. Official text.
- Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), 13 March 2015, E.2013/1627, K.2015/1020; open education, continuation from associate degree to bachelor's degree, irregular income and majority assessment. Full text on UYAP.
- Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), 14 November 2019, E.2018/904, K.2019/1181; KPSS preparation, need for support and the date of later employment. Full text on UYAP.
- Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 5. Hukuk Dairesi), 6 November 2023, E.2023/4275, K.2023/10265; determination of jurisdiction in a maintenance claim for education. Full text on UYAP.
- Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 8. Hukuk Dairesi), 3 May 2016, E.2014/25580, K.2016/8179; enforcement of child maintenance after majority and distinction between new action. Full text on UYAP.
- Derya Ateş, "The Duty of Parents to Cover the Maintenance and Education Costs of an Adult Child in Light of Developments in Swiss Law" (İsviçre Hukukundaki Gelişmeler Işığında Ana Babanın Ergin Çocuğun Bakım ve Eğitim Giderlerini Karşılama Yükümlülüğü), Journal of the Turkish Justice Academy, 2021, issue 47, pp. 179–214; in particular pp. 180–186 and 189–192. Academic article.
- Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu), in particular Arts. 344–347. Official text.