Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Compensation in Divorce: Conditions and Proof

Under Civil Code Article 174(1), a spouse without fault or with less fault may seek appropriate pecuniary compensation from the spouse at fault for existing or expected interests impaired by the divorce. This concerns economic interests, such as the support and security lost when the marriage ends.

Article 174(2) concerns an appropriate monetary award where the events leading to divorce attacked the claimant's personality rights. This is non-pecuniary compensation, protecting interests such as dignity, physical or mental integrity and private life.

Both require a claim and the relevant fault conditions. They protect different interests and should be pleaded and supported separately. Neither is automatically awarded merely because a divorce occurs.

• A divorce must be granted and the relevant loss must arise because of it.
• The claimant must be without fault or less at fault than the other spouse.
• The other spouse must be at fault.
• Existing or reasonably expected economic interests must have been impaired.

Not every payment made during a marriage is compensation under Article 174. Wedding or household expenditure, a property claim or reimbursement may be an independent claim with its own legal basis, evidence and fees. Giving the demand a divorce-compensation label does not settle its classification.

The Court of Cassation's application of Article 174(2) requires a claimant without fault or with less fault, fault by the other spouse, and divorce-related events constituting an attack on the claimant's personality rights.

Conduct sufficient to establish fault in the breakdown of the marriage is not necessarily an attack on personality rights. The proven conduct, its seriousness, context and effect must be examined rather than applying a fixed list of behaviours.

In Yargıtay 2nd Civil Chamber, E.2025/7361, K.2026/1811, 17 February 2026, the Court distinguished proven divorce fault from the additional personality-rights condition and set aside the non-pecuniary award. Its conclusion concerned the evidence and conduct established in that file; it does not establish that a broad label such as psychological harm can never engage personality rights.

The court identifies the proven conduct attributable to each spouse and compares it. The case-law approach does not award Article 174 compensation to an equally or more heavily at-fault claimant.

In Yargıtay 2nd Civil Chamber, E.2025/9072, K.2026/6558, 15 June 2026, the Court reassessed the particular spouses' conduct as equal fault and set aside the compensation awarded on the previous assessment. Maintenance was considered separately because its fault criterion differs.

• Events established to have been forgiven or tolerated may cease to support a fault allegation. Continued cohabitation alone does not prove forgiveness in every case.
• Vague witness accounts may be inadequate; timing, place and direct knowledge matter.
• A changed fault assessment on appeal can affect compensation.

There is no universal ranking that makes one type of alleged conduct heavier than another regardless of frequency, context and proof.

The Code provides for appropriate compensation rather than a fixed tariff. Judicial discretion under Civil Code Article 4 must comply with law and equity. Income, assets, the marriage, the severity of fault, the affected interests and the purchasing power of money may be relevant. Code of Obligations Articles 50–51 also address proof and the scope of compensation.

Under Civil Procedure Code Article 26, the court is generally bound by the relief requested and cannot award more or something different. A sum from an old judgment is not a current benchmark for another family.

Interest: compensation ancillary to the divorce generally becomes payable when the divorce judgment becomes final; where interest is requested, finality is generally the starting point. A later independent action, its claim and default circumstances require separate assessment.

Article 176 permits pecuniary compensation as a lump sum or, where appropriate, periodic payment. Non-pecuniary compensation cannot be judicially ordered as a periodic income. A private settlement's payment provisions and its legal effects require their own review.

The claimant must establish the relevant facts, damage and fault. Civil Code Article 184 contains special divorce evidentiary rules: the judge must be convinced of the facts, admissions do not generally bind the judge, and evidence is assessed freely. The statutory uncontested-divorce exception under Article 166(3) must also be distinguished.

Witnesses should explain what they actually observed, when and where. General conclusions or hearsay are not the same as a concrete account. Messages, emails, medical records and police documents can be relevant, subject to authenticity, completeness, authorship and lawful acquisition.

Civil Procedure Code Article 189(2) excludes unlawfully obtained evidence. A message sent to you and material obtained by forcing access to another person's locked device are not interchangeable. Shared use, consent and the actual method of access must be examined; marriage does not itself authorise breaking passwords.

Preserve genuine original material and seek lawful evidence procedures. Unlawful collection can create separate liability as well as evidentiary problems.

Compensation may be requested in the divorce proceedings through the appropriate pleading and procedural route. A respondent's request and any counterclaim must be assessed under the applicable pleading rules. The court cannot award this compensation without a claim.

Article 174 compensation sought as an ancillary consequence within the divorce has a different fee and representation-cost treatment from an independent monetary claim. Other property or reimbursement claims do not automatically share that treatment.

Article 178 provides a one-year limitation period from finality of the divorce judgment for the specified claims arising from dissolution by divorce. In a contested divorce where compensation was not sought, a later separate claim may be possible within that framework. This is a limitation defence, not a general period the judge always applies of their own motion; Code of Obligations Article 161 is relevant.

The final divorce judgment's fault findings, any waiver, res judicata and the scope of earlier relief are important. A later action is not an opportunity simply to retry the same final fault assessment. Independent proceedings also require a separate check of fees and legal costs.

Under Articles 166(3) and 184(5), the financial consequences and children's arrangements in an uncontested divorce require the court's assessment and approval. A waiver should identify the rights and proceedings it concerns precisely.

• A statement made only on condition that an agreed divorce occurs is not automatically the same as an unconditional procedural waiver if the case later becomes contested.
• Settlement of the mandatory financial consequences does not automatically settle every marital-property claim.
• Specify the amount, due date, payment method and consequences of delay for agreed compensation.
• Identify separately any maintenance, jewellery, property-regime or other claims being waived or reserved.

The one-year rule should not be presented as permission to reopen financial consequences already finally settled in an uncontested divorce.

Including several requests in one document does not make their legal bases, fees or deadlines identical.

The Constitutional Court's 4 June 2026 decision, E.2025/156, K.2026/131, annulled the words permitting poverty maintenance “for an indefinite period” in Article 175(1). It was published in the Official Gazette on 30 September 2026, No.33386. The Court deferred the annulment's effect for nine months, to 30 June 2027.

The Court addressed a foreseeable and proportionate framework taking both spouses' circumstances into account. Later legislation and the applicable procedural setting will need assessment. The decision concerns poverty maintenance, not abolition of child maintenance or Article 174 divorce compensation.

Constitutional Court's official announcement

• Failing to request compensation or assuming the court will exceed the requested sum.
• Treating every wedding or household payment as Article 174 loss.
• Assuming that another spouse's fault makes the claimant automatically less at fault.
• Relying on forgiven events without considering reconciliation and context.
• Using vague witness statements or unlawfully obtained private material.
• Missing the finality date or relying on an unclear waiver.
• Treating an old award as a guaranteed current amount.

• Civil Code No.4721: Articles 4, 166(3), 174–176, 178 and 184.
• Code of Obligations No.6098: Articles 50–51, 58 and 161.
• Civil Procedure Code No.6100: Articles 26 and 189.
• Constitutional Court, E.2025/156, K.2026/131: decision, publication and deferred effect are separate dates.
• Official Court of Cassation search: 2nd Civil Chamber, E.2025/7361, K.2026/1811, 17.02.2026; E.2025/9072, K.2026/6558, 15.06.2026.

Related articles: uncontested divorce agreement and maintenance increase.