In recent months, proposals to link alimony to the length of marriage, to move toward time-limited alimony, and for the state to establish an “alimony fund” to make payments have once again come to the fore in public debate. While current legislation does not include any provision to limit poverty alimony by time, discussions in this direction have increasingly focused on the risk of impoverishment after divorce.
Lawyer Fatma Hopikoğlu from the Women’s Commission of the Association of Lawyers for Freedom (ÖHD) said the purpose of alimony is to provide financial support to the party who will be impoverished due to divorce. She said that taking the duration of marriage as the sole criterion disregards women’s unpaid care labor, their detachment from professional life, and the structural inequalities they face in working life.
According to Fatma Hopikoğlu, discussions framed around time-limited alimony and the narrative of “victimized men” carry risks that deepen women’s exposure to poverty while also potentially fueling violence.
Do you not think that the proposal to ‘link alimony to the length of marriage’ ignores a sociological problem rather than addressing a legal one? In Turkey, women face a high risk of falling into poverty after divorce due to unpaid care labor during marriage, being forced out of their careers, and working in informal employment. Would taking only the length of marriage as the basis not further deepen de facto inequality?
At present, there is no practice in our country of time-limited alimony or alimony tied to the duration of marriage. On this issue, unless there is an explicit request and consent from the parties, judges do not have discretionary authority either. Firstly, it is necessary to properly understand why alimony is paid. The fundamental purpose of alimony is for one party to provide economic support to the other party, who will be impoverished due to divorce. For years, one of the debates supported by many institutions has been whether spouses are obliged to pay alimony for life in the event of divorce. While it is possible to terminate alimony that is paid for many reasons, linking alimony to the length of marriage will, as in many other areas, cause women to be ignored sociologically and economically in this matter as well.
With the debates carried out around this regulation, an attempt has been made to present alimony paid to women as if it were a practice that can never be abolished. Women are struggling with very serious problems such as violence, poverty, and inequality. Alongside all of this, debates on limiting alimony by time will further increase violence in some cases and take on a harmful character.
In our country, it is very common for women to be prevented from working during marriage, to assume the care of children if there are any, or the care of other people in the household, and to be pushed away from working environments for various reasons. It can also be seen that this is not solely due to educational levels or economic conditions. If alimony to be paid to women after divorce becomes time-limited, it is certain that women will be further impoverished due to careers that have already regressed within marriage, inequalities in the labor market, and the disregard of their labor in the home, and that inequality between individuals at the end of marriage will deepen.
Time-limited alimony practices will make it more difficult for women to access alimony after divorce. If such debates continue, even the amounts of alimony paid for children often intensify controversies. Yet the difficulty women face in accessing alimony will lead them into deeper poverty and will mean that women will be forced to sustain their lives at the doors of social assistance institutions.
Moreover, a practice such as time-limited alimony will also lead a woman who knows she will fall into absolute poverty after divorce to give up on divorcing and submit to her existing life.
Does the proposal for the state to establish an “alimony fund” and make payments in place of men who cannot pay not mean transferring the obligation from the individual to the public sphere? Would this model not erase the reality that alimony is not a social right but a personal responsibility arising after divorce? What risks would such a shift pose from the perspective of the rule of law?
Although it has been stated that studies will be carried out on the establishment of an alimony fund, there is currently no concrete regulation in place. In other words, there is no arrangement under which the state directly assumes the alimony debt of the person obliged to pay alimony. If such a regulation were to be introduced, it could mean that responsibility is transferred to the public sphere. The alimony obligor would refrain from paying alimony, knowing that it will already be paid by the state.
Article 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey states that Turkey is a social state governed by the rule of law. Within this framework, the state provides various forms of economic support, particularly to citizens in economically vulnerable situations. The payment of alimony debt is not counted among these forms of support.
If the alimony debt of the obligor were to be paid by the state through various alimony fund mechanisms, this could lead to the narrowing of the scope of other social assistance programs for women and children in disadvantaged situations. Support mechanisms that are already limited could be cut or further restricted if alimony debts are covered by the state.
In other words, covering alimony debts that are the responsibility of individuals through public funds would create many disadvantages for women and children, while for the alimony obligor it would mean a weakening of the sense of responsibility and the possibility of evading responsibility for alimony arising from the dissolution of marriage. However, a system in which the state makes direct payments to the alimony creditor on behalf of the debtor and subsequently recovers the paid amounts from the alimony obligor could help resolve the collection problem faced by alimony recipients. The absence of such a regulation, on the other hand, forces alimony recipients to try to survive on social assistance.
Although Article 175 of the Turkish Civil Code clearly states that alimony is not based on gender, how and why do you think the discourse of “victimized men” has been made so widespread? Is the fact that the most alimony recipients in practice are women due to a legal privilege, or because the party that becomes impoverished in Turkey is predominantly women?
The regulation in Article 175 of the Turkish Civil Code states that ‘the party who will fall into poverty due to divorce may request alimony indefinitely from the other party, in proportion to the latter’s financial capacity, provided that their fault is not heavier.’ In other words, the obligation of care and support between spouses continues after the dissolution of the marital union under the name of poverty alimony. The fundamental condition assessed by judges for granting such alimony is that the fault of the alimony claimant is less than that of the other party. Neither the article itself nor its implementation foresees any gender-based distinction.
The development of the discourse of ‘victimized men’ leads to an increase in psychological pressure on women in society and, as a result, contributes to the emergence of various forms of violence. Alimony in our country does not directly affect individuals’ financial rights alone; it also affects basic needs such as health care for women, who are generally assumed to bear responsibility for childcare, as well as children’s education and housing. Moreover, the fact that most alimony recipients are women unfortunately shows that, in terms of gender, those who become impoverished are predominantly women. If women are not brought to an economically equal position with men, there will continue to be demands for fair, accessible, and sustainable alimony practices.
In these debates, the narrative of “the victimization caused by indefinite alimony” is frequently highlighted; yet why are the circumstances under which alimony can be reduced or terminated almost never discussed in public? Do you think this selective framing serves to strip alimony of its character as a right and present it as a social threat?
Alongside the discourse of ‘victimized men’ that has been cultivated for years, statements such as ‘spouses are obliged to pay alimony for life in the event of divorce’ are frequently voiced. Within this narrative, instead of focusing on women who are in fact the primary victims within the economic system, the emphasis is placed on men who are obliged to pay alimony and are said to be unable to build a new life or remarry because of this obligation, with the aim of eliminating responsibility. Meanwhile, the economic difficulties and social status disparities experienced by women after the end of marriage are not discussed.
The Civil Code does not state that poverty alimony is to be paid for life; it also clearly sets out the conditions under which alimony may be modified or terminated. According to the law, alimony automatically ends if the creditor remarries or if one of the parties dies. It may also be terminated by a court’s decision if the creditor lives as if married without entering marriage, if their state of poverty ceases to exist, or if they lead a life deemed dishonorable.
Therefore, there is no legal basis for portraying alimony as something that is ‘indefinite, endless, impossible to abolish, and lasting until death.’ Instead of these debates, efforts should be made within the framework of social state policies to achieve women’s social and economic equality.
Discourses such as ‘victimized men’ and ‘indefinite, lifelong alimony’ constitute an attack on and interference with the right to alimony, which has been established for women who, due to social and economic reasons, are most often compelled to seek alimony. The right to alimony is of vital importance for women and children.
The perception of ‘victimized men,’ which is also reinforced through state rhetoric, deepens the hardship faced by alimony recipients and exposes them to disturbing discourse in society. To prevent the spread of this perception, it is necessary to repeatedly remind the public, across all platforms, of what the legal regulation actually provides and of the importance of alimony.
Leave a Reply