Where maintenance is not paid, the accrued instalments and the maintenance that continues to fall due may be collected through enforcement proceedings suited to the type of order. Enforcement proceedings and a complaint for coercive imprisonment are different routes: not every maintenance debt automatically leads to imprisonment. The order, the enforcement proceedings, service, the unpaid monthly instalment and the complaint deadline must be examined together. Where the debt can be collected, the conditions for coercive imprisonment may still not be met for a particular period. [1, 5–7] For more detail, see Coercive Imprisonment for Unpaid Maintenance.
This article covers the collection and complaint process in Türkiye. The legal assessment is current as of October 13, 2026. For international routes where the debtor or the assets are abroad, see the guide on collecting child maintenance from abroad.
First, Determine Which Maintenance Was Ordered by Which Decision
Can a criminal complaint be filed directly if there is no maintenance order?
Family expectations, a promise of payment made by message, or a list of expenses on which the parties have not agreed are not, on their own, grounds for coercive imprisonment under Article 344 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. First, determine under which decision the maintenance obligation was set. A temporary maintenance order during a pending divorce, poverty or child maintenance after the divorce, or, for an adult child, a claim relating to education and support obligations may be in question. The general framework of the types of maintenance is summarised in Types of Maintenance and Their Conditions. [1 art. 344; 3 arts. 169, 175, 182, 328, 364]
A divorce protocol approved by the court also cannot be read on its text alone. How the protocol was incorporated into the judgment, the start date of payments, the currency, and whether the increase condition is clearly defined are all checked. One parent undertaking to pay school fees and the other parent receiving monthly maintenance may give rise to different debts. To avoid the same expense being claimed twice, the judgment and the payment records must be read together. [2 arts. 26, 297; 3 arts. 166, 182]
An interim order and a final judgment are not subject to the same enforcement route
An interim maintenance order issued while a divorce is pending is, as a rule, not a basis for enforcement based on a judgment. In its decision of March 13, 2019, E.2018/6085, K.2019/4240, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi) found that enforcement based on an interim order through enforcement by judgment was wrong. The Chamber stated that this document may be used in general attachment proceedings. The practical result of the decision is to prevent a justified maintenance claim from being delayed because the wrong type of enforcement was chosen. [5]
This distinction does not mean that interim maintenance cannot be collected until the divorce ends. Enforcement that fits the nature of the interim order may be carried out. For a maintenance award contained in a final judgment, the type of order, whether the maintenance depends on the divorce ruling, and the finality of the relevant ruling must be assessed separately. Treating poverty and child maintenance that depend on the outcome of the divorce in the same way as an independent maintenance or increase order is not correct. The relationship between finality and enforcement is discussed more broadly in Enforcement of Judgments Before They Become Final. [2 arts. 350, 367; 5, 9] Can a Maintenance Order Be Enforced Before Finality? may also be useful on this point.
| Document in hand | First check | Practical significance |
|---|---|---|
| Interim maintenance order issued during the divorce | Start date, amount, subsequent interim orders | Whether to use general attachment proceedings is assessed. |
| Poverty or child maintenance tied to the divorce judgment | Finality of the divorce ruling and its start date | The debt for the interim period is separated from the post-divorce period. |
| Independent maintenance or increase judgment | Scope of the judgment and its enforceability | The date from which the increased amount is claimed is determined. |
| Special agreement or message only | Legal nature of the document and basis of the claim | Enforcement is not sought as if a maintenance order existed. |
How Is Accrued Maintenance Debt Calculated?
Why is a monthly debt table necessary?
Rather than writing a single total, each instalment should show the date it fell due, the amount in force on that date, any increase, the payments made, and the remaining balance. This way the debtor can see what is being disputed, and the collection and the complaint can separate different periods. One payment cannot be deducted from the debts of two months at once, and one month's maintenance cannot be collected again in more than one file. [1 arts. 32, 58; 4 arts. 100–102]
The following example only illustrates the calculation method. If three instalments of 6,000 TL monthly maintenance have fallen due, a documented payment of 2,000 TL was made toward the second month, and no valid increase applies in this period, the principal is 16,000 TL. This figure is not a current maintenance schedule. Interest, enforcement costs and attorney's fees are not included and must be calculated separately. If the judgment provides for an annual increase, keeping 6,000 TL fixed in every month may change the result.
| Instalment | Amount in force per month | Documented payment | Remaining principal |
|---|---|---|---|
| First month | 6,000 TL | 0 TL | 6,000 TL |
| Second month | 6,000 TL | 2,000 TL | 4,000 TL |
| Third month | 6,000 TL | 0 TL | 6,000 TL |
| Total | 18,000 TL | 2,000 TL | 16,000 TL |
Do cash payments, gifts and school expenses count as maintenance?
Where a cash payment is claimed, evidence such as a receipt or the creditor's acknowledgment becomes important. A bank transfer slip that states the relevant month and type of maintenance reduces disputes. A transfer without explanation may be disputed as to which debt it belongs to; set-off rules and the parties' explanations are examined together. [4 arts. 100–102; 2 arts. 190, 199]
A phone bought for a child, a holiday expense, or a payment made directly to a school does not, in every case, replace the monthly maintenance set in the judgment. It must be determined whether the judgment includes a separate education expense and which debt the payment was made to fulfil. The creditor should also report maintenance payments received outside the file, so that the enforcement balance reflects the actual position. [3 arts. 182, 327, 330; 4 arts. 100–102]
Can a single general rate be used for interest and increases?
No. First, the order or interim decision, the maturity of the instalments, default, and the scope of the claim are examined. If the increase provision specifies which index of the Consumer Price Index (TÜFE) and which month is the basis, the calculation follows that. The annual change and the twelve-month average are not the same indicator. Applying one interest rate and one start date to all accrued debt across all periods may also produce an incorrect result. The difference between an annual increase ruling and a maintenance increase action is explained in that article. [1 arts. 32, 58; 4 arts. 117–120]
What Steps Follow Once Enforcement Proceedings Have Started?
How are service and objection handled?
Depending on the type of enforcement, a payment order or an enforcement order is issued. The address, to whom and when service was made, and any claim of irregular service should be checked. In enforcement based on a non-judgment instrument, the consequences of objecting to the debt or to jurisdiction differ from the applications available in enforcement based on a judgment. In general attachment proceedings, the period for objecting to a payment order is, as a rule, seven days. This period must not be confused with the period for objecting to an order of coercive imprisonment. [1 arts. 16, 32–33, 60, 62, 66, 353]
A debtor who believes the amount paid is being claimed again, or that an increase not found in the judgment has been applied, should apply to the appropriate legal remedy with the decision and the receipts. A creditor, meanwhile, should not try to resolve an objection only by telephone, and should not miss the deadlines for the removal or annulment routes. Which route to use depends on the basis of the enforcement and the content of the objection. For the complaint route against enforcement office acts and its deadlines, see Complaints Against Enforcement Office Actions. [1 arts. 67–68]
Can wages, bank accounts and other assets be attached?
Where the conditions for attachment are met in properly conducted enforcement proceedings, the creditor may proceed against bank receivables, wages or other assets that can be attached. However, the attachability of each asset and the scope of a wage deduction are not the same. The nature of the maintenance claim, the rules on non-attachability, ongoing maintenance and accrued debt should be assessed together. [1 arts. 82–83, 89, 100–101, 355]
In particular, general statements such as "the full salary is always taken for maintenance" or "at most one quarter can be deducted" are not reliable. The type and period of the maintenance, existing attachments and the applicable special wage rules affect the result. In the file, ongoing maintenance and past principal should be shown separately, and deductions made under the notice sent to the employer should be compared regularly. [1 arts. 83, 100–101, 355] For detailed assessment, see Wage and Pension Attachment for Maintenance.
Why Are Accrued Maintenance and Ongoing Maintenance Separated?
Enforcement proceedings serve to collect maintenance that has already fallen due in the past. For coercive imprisonment, however, the breach of the current monthly obligation and the conditions for enforcement and complaint matter. The fact that the entire long-unpaid debt appears in the file does not mean that imprisonment can be applied for the whole of that total. [1 arts. 344, 347; 6]
In its decision of February 6, 2024, E.2024/582, K.2024/915, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi) found that coercive imprisonment imposed after a complaint filed in February 2023 about maintenance for some months of 2021 was wrong. The review focused on the current period subject to the complaint and the relevant instalments, and on the fact that the sanction falls away if those instalments are paid. The decision does not mean that the old maintenance claim is erased; the debt to be collected and the period subject to the sanction must be kept separate. [6]
Accordingly, two records are useful. The first is the full collection account. The second is the set of months on which the complaint is based. In the second record, the date of each instalment, its relationship to service, the fact of non-payment and the date of learning are shown separately. A complaint petition that vaguely states "he has not been paying for a long time" does not replace this review. [1 arts. 347, 351]
Under What Conditions Is Coercive Imprisonment Applied to a Person Who Does Not Pay Maintenance?
Complaint and imprisonment of up to three months
Article 344 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law provides for coercive imprisonment of up to three months, upon the creditor's complaint, against a debtor who does not comply with a maintenance order. The existence of the order alone is not enough. Proper enforcement and service, an unpaid current instalment, and a timely complaint are examined in the file. That at least one month of current maintenance debt accrued between service and the complaint is among the conditions applied in the Court of Cassation decisions reviewed. [1 art. 344; 6–7]
A coercive imprisonment order is not an automatic result of an ordinary collection request that the creditor makes to the enforcement office. The complaint is assessed by the enforcement criminal court with jurisdiction over the place of enforcement. The complainant must follow the hearing and be represented; if they do not attend the scheduled hearing and do not send a representative, the right to complain may be lost. [1 arts. 346, 348–349]
Complaint and objection deadlines differ
The right to complain lapses three months after the act is learned of and, in any event, one year after the act. For monthly instalments, the breach and the date it was learned of should be specified. The one-year outer limit does not make the three-month period running from learning of the act ineffective. [1 art. 347]
Against an order of coercive and disciplinary imprisonment, an objection may be lodged within two weeks from service under the current Article 353 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. The statement found in older sources, "seven days from announcement (tefhim) or service", cannot be used as the current rule after the 2024 amendment. The authority to hear the objection and the procedure are also set out in the same article. [1 art. 353]
How do payment and the execution of imprisonment affect the debt?
The law provides for the debtor's release if, after imprisonment has begun, the order is complied with. Article 354 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law regulates the cases of waiver of the complaint and of established payment of the debt. Which instalments are the subject of the complaint, and which payment covers those instalments, must be documented. [1 arts. 344, 354; 6]
Serving imprisonment is not a payment that replaces the maintenance debt. The unpaid claim may remain in the collection account. However, a payment made for the same debt should be submitted both to the enforcement file and to the relevant complaint file. Lifting the sanction and concluding that the entire enforcement debt is closed are not the same step. [1 arts. 344, 354]
Does Filing an Action to Reduce or Terminate Maintenance Stop Payment?
A maintenance debtor who claims that income has fallen, or who files an action for reduction, does not thereby automatically suspend the current obligation. Article 344(2) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law allows the enforcement of coercive imprisonment to be left until the end of the reduction or termination action, taking the grounds raised into account. This does not mean that all steps in the enforcement file stop automatically. [1 art. 344]
In its decision of January 20, 2026, E.2026/227, K.2026/222, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi) did not treat an expert examination of the debtor's income in an ongoing divorce file as an independent action for reduction or termination. The Chamber rejected the request for reversal in favour of the law, which had been submitted against the coercive imprisonment order. The decision shows that the belief "the divorce is ongoing and my income is being investigated, so I may not pay" provides no legal protection. The conditions for reduction and termination actions are set out in Reduction and Termination of Maintenance. [7]
For the debtor, the course is to document the changed circumstances and to request the appropriate decision from the competent court. For the creditor, it should be checked whether the reduction file actually exists, which period the claim affects, and whether a stay or suspension decision has been issued. The limits on deferral of enforcement in maintenance matters are discussed in Deferral of Enforcement (tehiri icra).
How Is the Statute of Limitations Assessed for Old Maintenance Debts?
The continuation of the maintenance right and the limitation of instalments that have already fallen due are separate questions. In its decision of September 23, 2019, E.2019/9724, K.2019/13231, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi) assessed a ten-year period for maintenance instalments based on a judgment. It cannot be concluded from this that all maintenance claims end without distinction after ten years. [8]
The date on which each instalment became due, previous enforcement steps, acknowledgment of the debt, and events that interrupt limitation must be examined together. The limitation defence that the debtor must raise is not the same as the preclusive period for a criminal complaint. When considering an old debt for enforcement, looking only at the date of the first maintenance order is not enough. [1 art. 39; 4 arts. 154–156, 161; 8]
Which Documents Should Be in the Application File?
The decision and, where available, information on its finality, the payment schedule, bank receipts, information on any previous enforcement file, the payment or enforcement order, and service documents should be prepared together. If there is an increase, the relevant part of the decision and the index data used should be added. For a complaint, the unpaid periods should be marked separately. Rather than a file full of unnecessary personal data, each document should be explained in terms of the claim it proves. [1 arts. 58, 344, 347, 351; 2 art. 194]
The costs of enforcement and litigation depend on the procedure and the tariff in force. There is no single cost for maintenance enforcement that applies in every case. A person who lacks the means to pay may, if the conditions are met, consider legal aid from the court and the bar's legal aid service. These are different applications and reviews. The framework for legal aid from the court is set out in Article 334 et seq. of the Civil Procedure Law No. 6100. [2]
Conclusion
In unpaid maintenance, what matters is the right starting point, the right decision and an account calculated from the right months. Once the enforcement type, service, collection records and complaint deadline have been checked, the attachment and coercive imprisonment routes are assessed within their own conditions. Not confusing accrued debt with current instalments, documenting payments, and examining the effect of a reduction action separately will reduce unnecessary disputes for both sides.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does coercive imprisonment follow immediately if one month's maintenance is unpaid?
No. Alongside an unpaid instalment, proper enforcement, service, a timely complaint and other conditions are required. The decision is made by the enforcement criminal court. [1 arts. 344, 347; 6–7]
Can interim maintenance be collected before the divorce ends?
Yes. Enforcement suited to the nature of the interim order may be carried out. Treating an interim order as a basis for enforcement by judgment may lead to the wrong enforcement route. [5]
Can coercive imprisonment be requested for all accrued maintenance?
The past debt and the current period subject to imprisonment are not the same. The months and periods that are the subject of the complaint must be determined separately. [6]
If the maintenance debtor is unemployed, does the debt end?
Unemployment does not automatically remove the existing order. A change in income and ability to pay may be raised before the competent court, and the effect of the existing order is assessed separately. [3 arts. 176, 331; 7]
Does an action to reduce maintenance automatically stop enforcement?
No. Leaving the enforcement of coercive imprisonment until the end of the action under Article 344(2) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law is not an automatic suspension of enforcement. A court assessment specific to the file is required. [1, 7]
How long is the deadline to object to coercive imprisonment?
Under the current regulation, the period is two weeks from service of the decision. It should not be confused with the three-month complaint period or the one-year outer limit. [1 arts. 347, 353]
If someone serves the imprisonment, is the maintenance debt erased?
No. Coercive imprisonment is not a payment that replaces the debt. The unpaid claim may continue in the collection process. [1 arts. 344, 354]
Does sending money directly to a child count as a maintenance payment?
It depends on whom the judgment directs payment to, the age of the child, and the purpose of the payment. Not every direct payment automatically satisfies the monthly obligation in the judgment. [3 arts. 182, 329; 4 arts. 100–102]
Can a bank account be attached for maintenance?
If the required conditions for enforcement are met, bank receivables may be pursued. The nature of the money in the account and any related claims of non-attachability are examined separately. [1 arts. 82–83, 89]
Can maintenance older than ten years never be collected?
No general rule can be stated. Although there is case law on the ten-year period for instalments based on a judgment, maturity, interruption and the raising of the defence are assessed together. [4 arts. 154–156, 161; 8]
Is withdrawing a complaint the same as waiving the entire claim?
Waiver of a criminal complaint and waiver of a private-law claim are not the same act. The scope of the statement must be clearly drafted, and amounts collected and not collected should be shown separately. [1 art. 354]
What if the maintenance debtor lives abroad?
Enforcement against assets in Türkiye and collection in a foreign country are assessed separately. No single method can be proposed without determining the country, the nature of the decision and the applicable international arrangement.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 2004 on Enforcement and Bankruptcy (İcra ve İflas Kanunu), in particular arts. 16, 32–39, 58–68, 82–83, 89, 100–101, 344–355. Official current text.
- Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular arts. 26, 190, 194, 199, 294, 297, 301, 334–340, 350, 367. Official text.
- Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medeni Kanunu), in particular arts. 166, 169, 175–176, 182, 327–331, 364. Official text.
- Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), in particular arts. 100–102, 117–120, 154–156, 161. Official text.
- 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi), March 13, 2019, E.2018/6085, K.2019/4240; type of enforcement for an interim maintenance order. Full decision text published by Avarsis.
- 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, February 6, 2024, E.2024/582, K.2024/915; complaint period and current maintenance. Full decision text published by Avarsis.
- 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, January 20, 2026, E.2026/227, K.2026/222; separation of an independent reduction action from the income inquiry in a divorce file. UYAP decision text.
- 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, September 23, 2019, E.2019/9724, K.2019/13231; limitation of maintenance instalments based on a judgment. Full decision text published by Esra Demirel.
- Zeliha Büşra Tanır, "Enforcement of Maintenance Judgments in Light of Court of Cassation Decisions" (“Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Nafaka İlamlarının İcrası”), Hukuki Haber, April 17, 2019, updated December 27, 2022; distinction between the type of judgment and its enforceability. Article.