The legal nature of the alimony that parents are obligated to pay to an adult child who is continuing their education is a controversial issue in doctrine and court decisions. The question of whether this alimony is “maintenance alimony” or “support alimony” constitutes the core of the debate. Indeed, the Court of Cassation’s decisions regarding the legal nature of alimony to be paid by parents to a child who is continuing their education also differ. In this context, the Court of Cassation has subjected Article 328/2 of the Turkish Civil Code (TCC), which regulates the alimony obligation of parents to an adult child who is continuing their education, to the provisions of Article 364 et seq. of the TCC, which regulate support alimony.
Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, Date: 02.03.2004, Decision No: 1445/1529;
“In the present case, the plaintiff child is an adult as of the date of the lawsuit. Thus, child support has ended pursuant to Article 328/1 of the Turkish Civil Code. However, since the child continues his education despite reaching adulthood, the parents’ obligation to cover the necessary expenses for his care, education, and protection continues until the end of his education (Article 328/2 of the Turkish Civil Code). Therefore, the request in the lawsuit filed by the adult child, clearly stating that his education is continuing, concerns the award of child support support pursuant to Article 328/2 of the Turkish Civil Code and within the scope of Article 364/final article.”[2]
Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, Date: 10/07/2014, Decision No: 5850/16116;
“…In the lawsuit filed by the parties’ adult child, T.. T.. (1989), it has been determined that the alimony awarded for this child is not “support alimony,” but “education alimony” (TCC, Article 328/2) …”[3]
Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, Date: 07.11.2019, Decision No: 564/1150;
“…Incidentally, although the Special Chamber stated that the alimony requested for the plaintiffs … and … is in the nature of support alimony regulated in Article 364/1 of the Turkish Civil Code (TCC) No. 4721, it is understood that the alimony requested for the alimony in question is maintenance alimony regulated in Article 328/2 of the TCC No. 4721.”[4]
As can be seen from these decisions, the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding the alimony obligation for a child who is still in education differ, despite the Turkish Civil Code’s Article 328/2, which explicitly defines the issue as maintenance alimony. According to the prevailing view in the doctrine, the alimony in Article 328/2 of the TMK is maintenance alimony. This is because the provision of Article 328/2 of the TMK is regulated under the heading “duration” of the parental obligation to care, within the scope of the distinction between the provisions of lineage and the obligation to “cover the care and education expenses of children” regulated in Article 327 of the TMK.
Considering the clear provision of the law and the prevailing view in the doctrine, it appears that the nature of the parental alimony obligation to a child who is still in education is “maintenance alimony (TMK 328/2).” At this point, the question of what the necessary conditions are for maintenance alimony to be in question is important. TMK Art. For a parent’s obligation to pay alimony to an adult child who is continuing his or her education to arise under Article 328/2, the following conditions must be met: the child must be an adult, continuing his or her education, and the parents must be expected to cover the costs of care and education. If one or more of these conditions are not met, the maintenance obligation regulated under Article 328/2 of the Turkish Civil Code will not arise.
Court of Appeals Civil Chambers, Date: 05.11.2019, Decision No: 3-2118/1138;
“…Furthermore, since studying at an Open University cannot be considered a reason that eliminates the father’s alimony obligation, the father is obligated to support his or her child who is continuing his or her education and has fallen into poverty. It is in the best interest of the child, as well as the father, for the child to complete school and find employment…”[5]
Court of Appeals Civil Chambers, Date: 14.11.2019, Decision No: 3-904/1181;
“Considering today’s conditions, a child’s graduation from university does not in itself mean the end of their education. In order for a child to be placed in a job related to their chosen profession, they must participate in activities such as foreign language courses, the Public Personnel Selection Examination (KPSS) course, and certification programs. It is essential that such activities be considered a continuation of their education. Furthermore, it is in the best interest of both the child and the father for the child to graduate from school and secure a good job.”[6]
Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, Date: 01.11.2012, Decision No: 17987/22454;
“… In the present case, although the plaintiff is continuing her education at an open education faculty, she is also working for minimum wage, while the defendant receives a pension. In this case, the plaintiff is not eligible for alimony. The lawsuit filed by the plaintiff should be dismissed…”[7]
Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, Date: 18.07.2005, Decision No: 7849/8137;
“The plaintiff’s desire to study at university and to attend preparatory courses for this purpose is her most natural right. At the time the lawsuit was filed, her employment at a gas station for a nominal salary was a necessity to support her livelihood. Therefore, it must be accepted that the daughter, who has no assets or income, has just reached adulthood, and desires to study, is in need of assistance. It is not right to dismiss the lawsuit in writing based on a mistaken assessment.”[8]
[1] This study utilized the following academic article: Özyakışır, Ö, ‘Türk İsviçre Hukukunda Ana ve Babanın Eğitimi Devam Eden Ergin Çocuğa Karşı Nafaka Yükümlülüğünde Çocuğun Bakım ve Eğitim Masraflarının Karşılanmasının Ana Babadan Beklenebilir Olması Koşuluna Eleştirel Bir Bakış’ (2025) 83(2) İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası–Istanbul Law Review 576. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.2.0012
[2] Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, Date: 02.03.2004, Decision No: 1445/1529.
[3] Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, Date: 10/07/2014, Decision No: 5850/16116.
[4] Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, Date: 07.11.2019, Decision No: 564/1150.
[5] Court of Appeals Civil Chambers, Date: 05.11.2019, Decision No: 3-2118/1138.
[6] Court of Appeals Civil Chambers, Date: 14.11.2019, Decision No: 3-904/1181.
[7] Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, Date: 01.11.2012, Decision No: 17987/22454.
[8] Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, Date: 18.07.2005, Decision No: 7849/8137.