Yoksulluk Nafakasında “Süresizlik” Sorunu
The Problem of Post Marital Spousal Support Without a Time Limit
Yazar: Yağcı, Kürşad
Dergi: Journal of Istanbul University Law Faculty, Vol. 76 No. 1, 2018
Anahtar kelimeler: Law in Context ; Hukuk ; Yoksulluk nafakası,Yoksulluk nafakasının süresi,Yoksulluk nafakasında süre,Yoksulluk nafakasının süreyle sınırlanması,Yoksulluk nafakasında süresizlik ; Spousal support,Alimony,Post marital maintenance,Duration of spousal support,Time limit of spousal support,Lifetime spousal support

Evliliğin boşanma ile sona ermesinin mali sonuçlarından birisi de yoksulluk nafakasıdır. Türk Medeni Kanununun (TMK) 175. maddesinin 1.fıkrasına göre, boşanma yüzünden yoksulluğa düşecek taraf, kusuru daha ağır olmamak koşuluyla geçimi için diğer taraftan malî gücü oranında süresiz olarak nafaka isteyebilir. Nafaka alacaklısı, isterse, elbette nafaka talebini belirli bir süreyle sınırlayabilir. Nafakanın süresiz olarak ödenmesinin talep edildiği hallerde, mahkemenin -kanundan doğan bir zorunluluk olarak- bir süre sınırlaması olmaksızın nafakaya hükmetmesinin gerekip gerekmeyeceği, ya da nafakayı belirli bir süreyle sınırlandırma konusunda hâkimin takdir yetkisinin olup olmadığı hususu tartışmalıdır. Yargıtay ve öğretideki baskın görüş, hâkimin nafaka süresini sınırlama konusunda bir takdir yetkisi olmadığını kabul etmektedir. Yargıtay’ın bu uygulaması, ömür boyu nafaka ödeme yükümlülüğünün, bazı hallerde, özellikle kısa süren ve çocuksuz evliliklerde, nafaka yükümlüsü aleyhine hakkaniyete aykırı sonuçlar doğurmasına yol açmıştır. Yaşanan mağduriyetler nedeniyle, yoksulluk nafakasına süre sınırı getiren olası bir kanun değişikliği, Aile Bakanlığının ve parlamento komisyonunun gündemine gelmiştir. Bu makalede yoksulluk nafakasının süresi, de lege lata ve de lege ferenda olarak değerlendirilmektedir.

One of the financial consequences of divorce deals with post marital spousal support (alimony). According to Article 175 of the Turkish Civil Code, “the party falling to poverty due to divorce may demand from the other side spousal support without a time limit for living costs, in proportion to the financial power of the other spouse on the condition that the fault of the recipient shall not be heavier than the fault of the obligor. It is not necessary for the obligor to be faulty.” The party demanding spousal support, of course, has the option to confine a spousal support claim to a certain period of time. In cases where lifetime spousal support is demanded, there is a debate about whether the judge has to rule on the obligor paying spousal support without setting a time limit or if he can confine the spousal support payment to a certain period of time. The Court of Cassation and the prevailing view of the Turkish doctrine acknowledge that the judge does not have the discretionary power to confine the spousal support to a certain period of time. This practice of the Court of Cassation, which led to the obligation to pay spousal support lasting for a lifetime, in some cases, causes unfair consequences for the obligor, especially in short marriages and childless marriages. A possible amendment of the law, bringing a time limit to the spousal support, has been brought to the agenda of the ministry of family affairs and the parliamentary commission due to intensely asserted grievances. In this article, the period of spousal support is evaluated in terms of de lege lata and de lege ferenda. One of the financial consequences of divorce deals with post marital spousal support (alimony). According to Article 175 of the Turkish Civil Code, “the party falling to poverty due to divorce may demand from the other side spousal support without a time limit for living costs, in proportion to the financial power of the other spouse on the condition that the fault of the recipient shall not be heavier than the fault of the obligor. It is not necessary for the obligor to be faulty.” The party demanding spousal support, of course, has the option to confine a spousal support claim to a certain period of time. In cases where lifetime spousal support is demanded, there is a debate about whether the judge has to rule on the obligor paying spousal support without setting a time limit or if he can confine the spousal support payment to a certain period of time. The Court of Cassation and the prevailing view of the Turkish doctrine acknowledge that the judge does not have the discretionary power to confine the spousal support to a certain period of time. This practice of the Court of Cassation, which led to the obligation to pay spousal support lasting for a lifetime, in some cases, causes unfair consequences for the obligor, especially in short marriages and childless marriages. A possible amendment of the law, bringing a time limit to the spousal support, has been brought to the agenda of the ministry of family affairs and the parliamentary commission due to intensely asserted grievances. In this article, the period of spousal support is evaluated in terms of de lege lata and de lege ferenda.