Family solidarity is not left entirely to conscience under Turkish law. Where a close relative would otherwise fall into poverty, the law transforms what might be seen as a moral duty into a binding legal obligation, allowing a person in genuine need to claim financial support from certain family members. This form of support, known in Turkish as yardım nafakası and best understood as a maintenance obligation between relatives, sits entirely apart from the maintenance issues that arise in divorce, and it operates across a much wider family circle than most foreign residents expect.
A Different Kind of Maintenance
To understand this obligation, it helps to separate it clearly from the other forms of maintenance that exist in Turkish law. Turkish family law recognizes several distinct types of nafaka, a term that covers interim maintenance ordered during a divorce, poverty alimony awarded to a spouse after divorce, and child support paid for the upbringing of children. All three of these are connected, directly or indirectly, to marriage and its dissolution. The maintenance obligation between relatives is fundamentally different: it has nothing to do with divorce, it does not depend on any marital relationship, and it rests instead on the bond of blood kinship.
Because the English word “alimony” tends to evoke divorce, foreign clients often assume that all maintenance in Turkey flows from a broken marriage. This particular obligation breaks that assumption. It can be claimed by a parent against an adult child, by a child against a parent, or between siblings, regardless of whether anyone involved is married, separated, or single. Its purpose is social: to keep members of a family from falling into destitution when a relative has the means to prevent it.
The Legal Foundation
The obligation is set out in the part of the Turkish Civil Code dealing with the duty of maintenance, principally in Articles 364 to 366. The core provision is Article 364 of the Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu), which states: “Everyone is obliged to provide maintenance to their ascendants, descendants, and siblings who would otherwise fall into poverty. The maintenance obligation of siblings depends on their being in a state of prosperity. The provisions concerning the support duties of the spouse and of the mother and father are reserved.”
This short article establishes the entire framework. It identifies who can claim, who must pay, and the central condition that triggers the duty, while expressly preserving the separate rules that govern support between spouses and the ordinary parental duty to care for children. Turkish courts have repeatedly described this obligation as a form of social solidarity rooted in morality and tradition that the legislator chose to make legally enforceable rather than leaving it to individual goodwill.
Who Can Claim and Who Must Pay
The circle of family members covered by this obligation is defined narrowly and exhaustively. It applies between ascendants and descendants and between siblings. Ascendants include parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, while descendants include children, grandchildren, and further generations. Siblings, both full and half-blood, are also included. The duty is reciprocal in nature, meaning that the same relatives who may be required to pay are also the ones entitled to claim; a parent may support a child and a child may support a parent, depending on who is in need and who has the means.
What surprises many foreign residents is how strictly the law excludes everyone else. Uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, cousins, and relatives by marriage fall entirely outside this framework. A person cannot demand maintenance from an aunt or a cousin under these provisions, and a claim directed at such a relative will fail because the law simply does not impose the obligation on them. This is a crucial point for international families with extended support networks, because the legal duty stops at the boundary drawn by the Civil Code, however close the family may feel in practice.
The Sibling Condition
While the obligation between ascendants and descendants is relatively straightforward, the duty between siblings carries an additional requirement. As Article 364 makes clear, a sibling is only obliged to provide maintenance if that sibling is in a state of prosperity. This is a higher threshold than simply having enough to live on. Turkish courts treat prosperity not merely as having a regular income but as possessing a degree of economic comfort that exceeds the person’s own needs. A sibling who is managing modestly is not required to support a brother or sister, whereas a sibling who is genuinely well-off may be.
The assessment of whether someone is prosperous is left to the discretion of the judge, who examines the relative’s overall financial situation. This extra condition reflects the law’s recognition that the bond between siblings, while real, carries a lighter obligation than the bond between parents and children. It also means that a claim against a sibling requires more careful evidence about the sibling’s wealth than a claim against a parent or adult child would.
The Central Requirement of Falling Into Poverty
The decisive condition that triggers the obligation is that the person claiming maintenance would fall into poverty without it. This is the heart of every claim. Turkish courts have given content to the concept of poverty through their decisions, treating a person as poor when they lack income sufficient to meet the expenditures necessary to sustain and develop their material existence, including food, clothing, housing, health care, transportation, and education. A person who cannot cover these basic needs from their own labor and income is regarded as being in need within the meaning of the law.
Turkish case law has added some important refinements. The person seeking maintenance is generally expected to have exhausted their own resources first, meaning that someone who still has assets they could use to support themselves may not yet qualify. At the same time, the courts have held that the poverty does not need to be fully realized at the moment of the claim; a genuine and concrete risk of falling into poverty can be enough to support an award. A claimant who is unable to work or who genuinely cannot meet their own needs is presumed to be acting in good faith.
A frequently litigated scenario involves adult children continuing their education. Where a child has reached the age of majority but is still studying, a related provision, Article 328, paragraph 2 of the Turkish Civil Code, extends the parents’ duty of care until the education is completed, obliging them to support the child to the extent that can reasonably be expected of them. This education-based duty is distinct from the general maintenance obligation between relatives, and choosing the correct legal basis for a claim is something Turkish courts pay close attention to, since relying on the wrong provision can lead to evidentiary problems or outright dismissal.
The Order of Liability
Turkish law does not allow a person in need to choose freely among their relatives. Under Article 365 of the Turkish Civil Code, a maintenance action must be brought following the order of succession in inheritance. This means that the obligation is pursued against relatives in the sequence in which they would inherit from the person in need, so that closer relatives are approached before more distant ones. A person cannot leap over a parent or child who is able to provide support in order to pursue a more distant or wealthier relative.
This ordering principle has real practical consequences. Someone seeking to claim maintenance from a sibling, for example, must generally first establish that there are no descendants or ascendants able to provide the support, or that pursuing them is not possible. For foreign nationals navigating Turkish proceedings, understanding this sequence at the outset is essential, because a claim brought against the wrong relative, or out of order, is vulnerable to challenge regardless of how genuine the underlying need may be.
How the Amount Is Determined and How the Case Proceeds
Unlike the temporary measures taken in a divorce, this maintenance is not awarded by the court on its own initiative. It requires a formal request; the obligation must be claimed through a proper action before the court. The competent court is the family court, or where there is no family court, the civil court of first instance acting in that capacity. Importantly, Turkish law allows the action to be filed at the place of residence of either the person owing the maintenance or the person claiming it, a deliberate choice by the legislator to make these claims practically accessible to relatives who may themselves lack the means to travel.
In setting the amount, the judge does not aim to satisfy every desire of the person in need but rather to provide what is necessary for their subsistence, calibrated to the financial capacity of the relative who must pay. Turkish courts apply the principle of equity drawn from the general provisions of the Civil Code, balancing the genuine needs of the claimant against the resources of the obligor, and taking care that the person ordered to pay is not themselves driven into financial hardship. The amount can later be increased, reduced, or removed if the financial circumstances of either party change, since the obligation is tied to ongoing need and ongoing ability to pay rather than fixed permanently at the moment of judgment.
The Role of Public and Charitable Institutions
A further dimension of this framework, often overlooked, concerns the involvement of institutions. Under the relevant provisions of Article 365 and Article 366 of the Turkish Civil Code, the care of persons in need who are looked after by official or public-benefit institutions can lead to those institutions stepping into the picture. An institution that provides for a person entitled to maintenance may bring a maintenance action against the relatives who are legally obliged to support that person, and may recover the expenses it has incurred from those liable relatives.
This means the obligation cannot simply be sidestepped by leaving a needy relative to be cared for by the state or a charitable body. The institution that bears the cost can turn to the family members who carry the legal duty and demand reimbursement. For foreign families with relatives receiving institutional care in Turkey, this is a meaningful exposure to be aware of, as liability can arise indirectly through an institution’s claim rather than only through a direct demand by the relative in need.
Because the rules on who may claim, the order in which relatives must be pursued, the poverty threshold, and the special condition attached to siblings all interact, assessing a potential claim or defending against one requires a careful reading of the family’s structure and finances. A Turkish law office experienced with international clients can determine whether a claim is properly founded, identify the correct relative to pursue under the statutory order, assemble the evidence of need and ability to pay, and ensure that any resulting obligation is enforced or resisted on the proper legal basis.
Contact us today to schedule a consultation. We are available online for clients located outside Turkey.
Leave a Comment