Wedding Jewellery in Divorce in Türkiye: Ownership and Evidence

The answer is not that all wedding gifts automatically belong to one spouse. The Court of Cassation's 2nd Civil Chamber, E.2025/2115, K.2025/3346, 8 April 2025, described its revised approach: first apply any agreement between the spouses; absent an agreement, apply an alleged and proven local custom. Otherwise, items of economic value given or attached to each spouse generally belong to that spouse.

The decision describes an exception for jewellery regarded as specific to the other sex. Its application and any expert assessment depend on the item and the parties' arguments. A judgment in one case does not predetermine every dispute.

According to the cited decision, if an item placed in a shared wedding box is found specific to one sex it is treated as given to that spouse; if it is suitable for both, it is treated as shared. If a personal gift is suitable for both, it generally belongs to the recipient. Disputed characteristics may require expert evidence.

Selling jewellery to buy a home or meet common expenses does not automatically extinguish a return obligation. In its 15 April 2026 decision, E.2025/10096, K.2026/4216, the 2nd Civil Chamber examined witness accounts, a bank transfer and a jeweller's record. Having found that the claimant's jewellery was used for a home and the other spouse had not proved it was handed over without a duty to return it, the court overturned the dismissal. The facts and evidence remain decisive.

The claimant must substantiate the type, number, characteristics and quantity of the jewellery and the asserted lack of possession. The decisions discuss the factual presumption that jewellery ordinarily remains with the person keeping it; evidence may show that it was taken during marriage, not returned or could not be taken on departure. Once the other spouse's possession is established, an assertion that it was received without an obligation to return requires proof.

Wedding photographs and videos can help identify items, but do not necessarily establish who retained them. Witnesses, messages, bank and jeweller records may also be relevant. Unlawfully obtained evidence is subject to Article 189(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

A claimant can request return of the identified items and, where appropriate, their value if return is impossible; the wording and valuation date of the claim matter. Interest must be requested and its starting date assessed. The jewellery claim is distinct from divorce's ancillary claims and may attract proportional court fees. The family court generally hears it; where there is none, the civil court acts in that capacity.

In E.2025/7288, K.2026/4945, 30 April 2026, the 2nd Civil Chamber held that a jewellery claim could be increased by procedural amendment and addressed court fees based on value at filing in that case. Amendment is subject to procedural timing and other rules. The limitation period depends on the nature of the particular claim; do not automatically equate it with the one-year period for divorce-related compensation.

Return of specific jewellery and liquidation of the matrimonial property regime have different legal bases and evidentiary questions. Article 220 of the Civil Code identifies personal property, including items for a spouse's exclusive personal use and assets acquired gratuitously, subject to the facts. A jewellery claim should not automatically be treated as an equal division of all marital assets.

Preserve original wedding images and recordings, jeweller and bank documents, records of purchases allegedly funded by the jewellery, witness details and evidence supporting any local custom.

Example: Where bracelets were sold for a family home, bank records and testimony may help establish delivery and use. Whether they were given without a duty of return must be assessed on the evidence. This is hypothetical and does not predict a result.

Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, Articles 6, 220 and 222; Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Articles 26, 176–177 and 189–190; Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, E.2025/2115 K.2025/3346; E.2025/10096 K.2026/4216; E.2025/7288 K.2026/4945.