When a spouse commits a degrading crime or settles into a way of life that conflicts with basic standards of honor and decency, the other spouse should not be expected to remain bound to the marriage. Turkish law addresses precisely this situation, recognizing that certain conduct, even when it is not directed at the other spouse, can make continued married life unbearable. This fault-based ground for divorce, known under Turkish law as suç işleme ve haysiyetsiz hayat sürme (commission of a crime and leading a dishonorable life), offers a distinct route to dissolution for foreign nationals and binational couples whose marriages have been undermined by a spouse’s criminal conduct or lifestyle.
The Legal Basis in the Turkish Civil Code
This ground is regulated by Article 163 of the Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu), which provides: “If one of the spouses commits a degrading crime or leads a dishonorable life, and for these reasons it can no longer be expected of the other spouse to live together with them, that spouse may file for divorce at any time.”
The provision is compact, but it contains two separate grounds for divorce within a single article. The first is the commission of a degrading crime by one spouse, and the second is the leading of a dishonorable life. Both share a defining feature that distinguishes them from many other fault-based grounds: the conduct in question is not aimed at the other spouse, yet it can still justify a divorce because of the effect it has on the marriage. A further shared requirement, expressed in the closing words of the article, is that the conduct must make continued cohabitation unbearable for the petitioning spouse. For a foreign spouse considering divorce in Turkey, identifying which of these two grounds fits the situation, and understanding the conditions attached to each, is the essential first step.
What Qualifies as a Degrading Crime
The first ground concerns the commission of a degrading crime, which Turkish law understands as an offense that society reacts to strongly and regards as morally unacceptable and shameful. These are offenses that damage a person’s standing and trustworthiness in the eyes of their social environment. Turkish legal doctrine and practice associate this category with offenses commonly described as disgraceful, and courts have considered crimes such as theft, fraud, embezzlement, and drug trafficking as falling within its scope. There is no fixed statutory list, however, and whether a particular offense amounts to a degrading crime is left to the judge to determine on the facts of the individual case.
Several features of this ground are important to understand. First, the crime need not be committed against the other spouse; it is typically an offense against a third party or against society at large. If the wrongful act is directed at the spouse personally, other grounds, such as an attempt on life or cruel treatment, or the general ground of irretrievable breakdown, may be more appropriate. Second, Turkish practice does not require that the offending spouse has actually been convicted or sentenced for the crime. What matters is that the spouse intentionally committed a degrading offense and that this has made shared life unbearable for the other spouse. The fault element is therefore central, and the act must be one that can be attributed to the spouse as their own deliberate conduct.
The timing of the offense also matters. As a rule, the crime must have been committed during the course of the marriage. Crimes committed before the marriage occupy a more complicated position. According to one view, a degrading crime that was committed before the marriage and concealed from the other spouse may shake the foundation of the union and support an action under this article, but where a spouse knew of the other’s prior offenses and chose to marry nonetheless, a divorce action based on those earlier crimes generally cannot be brought. Turkish appellate practice has also held that where spouses married after the crime was committed and the circumstances did not render cohabitation unbearable, a divorce on this ground may not be granted.
Understanding a Dishonorable Life
The second ground, leading a dishonorable life, addresses a spouse who adopts a way of living that openly conflicts with society’s general values of honor, reputation, and decency. Turkish courts and commentators describe this as a manner of living that cannot be reconciled with concepts of honor and dignity and that runs contrary to society’s moral standards. Because the meaning of honor and its absence cannot be defined in universal or timeless terms, the assessment is made in each case against the values and conditions of contemporary society, leaving the court considerable room to evaluate the specific circumstances before it.
What distinguishes this ground from an isolated lapse is the requirement of continuity. The wording of the article refers to leading a life, not to committing a single act, and Turkish courts have consistently required that the conduct form a sustained pattern rather than an occasional or one-off occurrence. A single dishonorable act, however regrettable, will not by itself satisfy this ground. The behavior must have become, in effect, a way of life. Turkish judicial practice has recognized conduct such as habitual gambling, alcohol dependence, drug addiction, procuring or pimping, persistent involvement in immoral occupations, and sustained sexual relationships outside accepted norms as examples of a dishonorable life within the meaning of this article. Habitual gambling, in particular, has been treated by Turkish courts as a recognized basis for divorce on this ground.
The Requirement That Cohabitation Become Unbearable
Neither the commission of a degrading crime nor the leading of a dishonorable life is sufficient on its own. The closing condition of Article 163 requires that, because of this conduct, it can no longer be expected of the other spouse to continue living together. This element of unbearability is what transforms the spouse’s conduct into a ground for divorce. The court does not look only at whether the crime or the lifestyle exists, but at the effect it has produced on the marriage and on the petitioning spouse.
This makes the ground relative rather than absolute in character. In contrast to grounds where proof of the act alone is enough, here the judge must be satisfied that the conduct has genuinely made continued cohabitation intolerable for the other spouse. A spouse who has tolerated the conduct without difficulty, or whose own circumstances suggest that cohabitation has not in fact become unbearable, may find the action unsuccessful. For foreign spouses, this means that the case must be framed and evidenced not merely around the existence of the crime or the lifestyle, but around its concrete impact on the marriage.
Proving the Case
Because these are fault-based grounds, the burden of establishing the alleged conduct rests on the spouse who brings the action. Under the general evidentiary rules of Turkish law, the petitioner must demonstrate both the conduct relied upon and the fact that it has made cohabitation unbearable. The standard is one of concrete proof rather than general assertion, and cases have failed where, for example, a spouse’s persistent gambling caused real financial ruin but sufficient evidence could not be produced to satisfy the court.
A dishonorable life can be established through a wide range of evidence, including witness testimony, photographs, video recordings, hospital and medical records, and court decisions. In cases involving criminal conduct, the legality of the evidence presented can itself become a contested issue, and material obtained improperly may be challenged. For foreign nationals, the evidentiary phase often raises additional practical hurdles, since relevant records may originate abroad and foreign-language documents must be translated and, where required, authenticated before a Turkish court will accept them. Assembling a coherent and admissible body of evidence is frequently the most demanding part of a case under this article, and it usually needs to be prepared well before the petition is filed.
Time Limits and the Question of Forgiveness
Unlike the divorce ground based on an attempt on life, cruel treatment, or degrading behavior, Article 163 does not set out a specific forfeiture period or an express rule on forgiveness. The article states that the wronged spouse may file at any time, which reflects the continuing nature of the conduct it addresses, particularly in the case of a dishonorable life that persists over time. This absence of a fixed deadline is a meaningful practical advantage, because the spouse is not racing against a short statutory clock as they would be under certain other special grounds.
That said, the open-ended wording does not mean that delay and acceptance are irrelevant. Where the offending spouse has effectively been forgiven, or where the conduct came to light only after a very long period had passed and the marriage continued without difficulty, the practical possibility of obtaining a divorce on this ground may be diminished. The behavior of the petitioning spouse, including any indication that they have come to terms with the conduct, can therefore influence how the court assesses whether cohabitation has truly become unbearable.
Relationship with Other Grounds for Divorce
A spouse is not confined to relying on Article 163 alone. Turkish procedure allows a petitioner to bring an action on this special ground together with, or as an alternative to, the general ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. A spouse may rely on both grounds at once, or may rely primarily on one and fall back on the other if the first is rejected. This flexibility is significant because the court is bound by the parties’ requests and cannot grant more than what has been sought. If a spouse files solely on the basis of Article 163 and that claim is dismissed, the court cannot automatically grant a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown that was never invoked. The way the action is pleaded at the outset therefore has lasting consequences for its outcome.
It is also worth distinguishing this ground from adultery, which is a separate special ground under Turkish law. Adultery concerns a breach of the duty of sexual fidelity between the spouses, whereas the commission of a crime under this article concerns an offense committed against a third party or against society. The two grounds protect different interests and are governed by different conditions, and choosing the correct basis is part of building an effective case.
The Importance of Sound Legal Guidance
A divorce under Article 163 can be a powerful remedy, but it is also a demanding one. The petitioning spouse must identify the right limb of the article, gather concrete and admissible evidence, demonstrate that cohabitation has become unbearable, and plead the case in a way that preserves alternative grounds. For foreign nationals unfamiliar with the Turkish court system, facing a language barrier, and relying on documents from other jurisdictions, these requirements can be difficult to navigate without informed assistance. A finding of fault under this article also carries consequences for compensation and alimony, since a spouse responsible for such conduct will generally be regarded as at fault in the divorce.
Working with a Turkish law office experienced in representing international clients helps ensure that the strongest available ground is chosen, that the evidence is assembled and authenticated correctly, and that the financial and personal consequences of the divorce are pursued effectively. At Ozan Soylu Law Office, based in Istanbul, we advise foreign nationals and binational couples on fault-based divorce in Turkey, including cases involving a spouse’s criminal conduct or dishonorable way of life, and we manage each stage of the proceedings from the preparation of evidence to the final decree.
Contact us today to schedule a consultation. We are available online for clients located outside Turkey.
Leave a Comment