Article 175 of Turkish Civil Code, No. 4721: Assessment of Debate on the Duration of the Poverty Alimony

Abstract

Even after the dissolution of marriage, as a reflection of solidarity obligation, Turkish law grants the party who will fall into poverty due to divorce the right to request alimony from the other spouse. Article 175 of Turkish Civil Code (TCC), no. 4721, titled “poverty alimony,” states that the party “may request alimony indefinitely”. It is the phrase indefinitely that has led to heavy discussions. The constitutionality of this provision was also challenged before the Turkish Constitutional Court, and in 2012, the Court had declared that the phrase indefinitely is not unconstitutional. Still, the debate on the duration of the poverty alimony is on the agenda. Even though Article 175 TCC grants the right to request poverty alimony to both of the spouses, without making any distinction in terms of male or female, this alimony is generally granted to women who are de facto at home and are economically weaker. The debate results from the situation of unemployed married women who suffer economically after the divorce. This study aims to examine poverty alimony under Turkish law with respect to its duration, evaluate the different doctrinal opinions in the literature, and, as a proposed solution, present an alternative way to interpret Article 175 TCC.

1. Introduction

Article 175–178 of Turkish Civil Code (TCC) envisages that the spouses have financial obligations even after the dissolution of marriage. The general purpose is to regulate the responsibilities of spouses, due to social and moral reasons even for the post-marriage. The basis of this alimony is the partial continuation of solidarity obligation between the spouses even after the dissolution of marriage [1].

Different jurisdictions address this type of support with different concepts such as spousal support or postmarital maintenance. In this study, we preferred “poverty alimony,” which is the direct literal translation of the legal concept used in TCC. “Alimony” is defined as a regular amount of money that a law court orders a person to pay to his/her partner after the legal ending of the marriage by divorce [2]. Since the spouses are expected to support each other during the marriage, the concept of spousal support seems to fall short of reflecting its postmarital qualification. Thus, rather than support or maintenance, in this study, the concept of “alimony” is adopted. Since, under Turkish law, granting this alimony is conditional on falling into poverty, the concept of poverty alimony is thought to fit best in reflecting the fundamental requirement of this legal institution.

According to Article 175 TCC, titled “poverty alimony,” “the party who will fall into poverty due to divorce may request alimony for his/her livelihood indefinitely from the other party in proportion to his/her financial power, provided that his/her fault is not grosser. The fault of the alimony obligor is not sought”. Under Turkish law, the starting point of the heavy discussions rests at the phrase “indefinitely”. Under the first text of Article 144 former TCC (Türk Kanunu Medenîsi, no 743), poverty alimony was limited with time; it could only be ordered for a period of 1 year. In 1988, with the Law, no. 3444, the provision was modified; the time limit was removed, and it was envisaged that the poverty alimony can be granted indefinitely. Article 175 TCC, which is in force today, still preserves indefiniteness in its wording. This is because the discussion as to the duration of the poverty alimony dates back to 1988 under Turkish law.

This study aims to briefly explain the concept of poverty alimony under Turkish law and examine the conditions of Article 175 TCC with special focus on the duration of the poverty alimony. In the conclusion part, personal thoughts and, as a proposed solution, an alternative way to interpret Article 175 TCC will be presented.

The study reviews the relevant jurisprudence of Turkish Court of Cassation as well as the decision of the Turkish Constitutional Court regarding the unconstitutionality challenge brought against Article 175 TCC. It also examines the different doctrinal opinions put forward both in Turkish and Swiss literature.

With the establishment of Republic of Türkiye, the adoption of a civil code based on secular principles was one of the leading revolutions of the new Türkiye. For the realization of this purpose, Swiss civil law was preferred since, by that time, Switzerland was the country with the newest, most modern civil law system, which has the simplest language that the public can easily understand and which includes provisions that ensure social balance thanks to its liberal structure. In 1926, the Swiss Civil Code and the Swiss Code of Obligations were directly translated and adopted. Although the current Turkish Civil Code is renewed in 2002, Turkish civil law is still under the Swiss law influence. Since it constitutes the reference law, this study makes comparative analysis with Swiss Civil Code.

2. The concept of poverty alimony

Poverty alimony is a type of maintenance alimony. Its main purpose is to support the spouse economically after the divorce and to ensure that the standard of living is minimally affected after the marriage. The underlying idea of poverty alimony is the continuation of mutual assistance and financial solidarity between spouses, subject to some conditions, even after the termination of marriage by divorce [1, 3].

During the divorce suit, the judge is not allowed to order poverty alimony; if conditions are met, the judge may, instead, order precautionary alimony. Upon the finalization of the decision of divorce [4, 5], the precautionary alimony turns into poverty alimony. In order for the judge to order poverty alimony, it must be either stipulated by the parties in the consensual divorce protocol in case of an uncontested divorce or demanded while the divorce suit is ongoing.

Poverty support does not qualify technically as compensation. As it was held by the court (YHGK, 04.04.2018, 2017/2-1579 E., 2018/673 K.), “since the poverty alimony is for protecting the party who will fall into poverty after the divorce, the poverty alimony to be granted to the divorced poor party is, by no means, a punishment or compensation imposed on the other party” [6]. It is argued that if compensation is awarded together with the decision of divorce, the condition of “falling into poverty due to divorce,” stipulated under Article 175 TCC as a condition for the poverty alimony, should presumed to be eliminated, and so the alimony should not be awarded [3, 5]. However, besides the need to discuss the criterion of falling into poverty; the essence of granting poverty alimony is to support the spouses financially and being less faulty is found sufficient to request [1]. Conversely, to award material or moral compensation due to divorce, the other spouse is required to be at fault. In such a case, not rendering a separate order for poverty alimony despite the request will ironically result in “rewarding” the faulty spouse.

3. The conditions of poverty alimony

3.1 Finalization of the divorce decision

Poverty alimony is a secondary consequence of divorce. In order for the judge to grant poverty alimony, the divorce decision must be finalized [1, 4]. While the divorce suit is ongoing, the judge may decide, upon request, on precautionary alimony as a temporary measure.

3.2 Request of the party

In a divorce suit, the judge cannot decide ipso iure on the poverty alimony without the request of the parties [4]. Poverty alimony can be requested either together with the divorce when filing the divorce suit or after the divorce decision is finalized, as a separate lawsuit within 1 year (Article 178 TCC). The requested amount must be clearly stated [5]. If the amount is not specified, the judge is obliged to ask the requesting party for clarification.

3.3 The requesting party shall not be more faulty than the other spouse

The spouse is allowed to request poverty alimony as long as his/her fault is not grosser than the other spouse. The requesting spouse shall be either faultless or less faulty. Here, the decisive criterion is the degree of fault. The ratio behind this requirement is to prevent rewarding the spouse with alimony who caused the divorce with his/her gross fault.

3.4 The requesting spouse shall fall into poverty by the end of the divorce

The law does not provide an explicit definition of poverty alimony. Poverty is (Y3HD, 26.05.2014, 2014/820 E., 2014/8178 K.) “decided by evaluating the economic and social conditions and lifestyles of the parties, together with the economic conditions of the day” [7]. Falling into poverty due to divorce should be evaluated in each concrete case. It must be underlined that falling into poverty does not mean that the alimony creditor (requesting party) does not have a job or income [4]; the poverty in the sense of Article 175 TCC occurs if he/she cannot make a living with his/her own work and financial power [1]. The court held that (YHGK, 04.05.2011, 2011/2-155 E., 2011/278 K.) the state of poverty occurs if the spouse does not have sufficient income to meet the necessary expenses to improve his/her individual’s corporeal existence such as nutrition, clothing, shelter, health, transportation, culture, and education [7].

3.5 Determination of the amount according to the financial situation of the alimony obligatory spouse

While the judge decides on the amount of the alimony, a fair ratio should be established between the amount of support required to prevent the alimony creditor from falling into poverty and the income of the alimony obligatory spouse.

4. The discussions on the duration of poverty alimony in Turkish law

4.1 The decision of Turkish constitutional court

The constitutionality of Article 175 TCC was challenged before the Turkish Constitutional Court (case dated 17.05.2012, E. 2011/136, K. 2012/72, Official Gazette 26.06.2012/28335). It was argued that the provision is not sufficiently detailed since it does not clearly regulate the conditions and the effect of the issues such as the financial strength of the parties, their age, the duration of marriage, and so forth. Either the complete cancelation of the provision or, if this is not accepted, partial cancelation limited with the phrase of indefinitely was requested. The Constitutional Court evaluated the contested rule in the light of “social legal state” under Article 2 of the Turkish Constitution and has declared that the phrase “indefinitely” in Article 175 TCC is not unconstitutional.

The main reasoning of the Court is as follows: the obligation of solidarity and assistance of spouses continues after marriage, albeit partially; the term “indefinite” cannot be understood as an obligation for lifetime; the poverty alimony is regulated as conditional on falling into poverty; the purpose is the economic support of the spouse who will fall into poverty due to divorce by the other, and under Article 175 TCC, the financial situation of the alimony obligor is also taken into consideration.

The dissenting opinion expressed in the aforementioned decision of the Turkish Constitutional Court examines the issue from a different perspective and finds indefinite alimony as unconstitutional: “Despite the fact that people have ended their legal relationship by getting divorced, the continuation of their responsibilities in the marriage union for life is both unjust and contrary to equity. The existence of an alimony obligation arising from divorce, which is, under some conditions, continuous throughout the life of the alimony debtor as if it were a property right, damages the sense of justice in a legal system in which the concepts of statute of limitations are accepted”.

4.2 Poverty alimony under Swiss law as the reference law

As in many legal systems, poverty alimony is a legally discussed issue [8]. Swiss law provides poverty alimony only if the spouse cannot make a living on his/her own. Schweizerisches Zivilgezetsbuch (ZGB) adopts, under Article 125 ZGB, the concept of Nachehelicher Unterhalt (postmarital alimony), which was formerly regulated under Article 152 former ZGB. Article 175 TCC corresponds to Article 152 former ZGB. Article 125 ZGB is almost completely different than the current Article 175 TCC.

None of the abovementioned ZGB provisions stipulate time limit. However, in Swiss practice, the Swiss Federal Court has introduced some criteria regarding time limitation. According to Article 125 ZGB, the judge shall decide the amount and duration of the alimony, taking into account various variables [8]. These variables are regulated explicitly in the law.

Article 125 ZGB is as follows:

If a spouse cannot reasonably be expected to provide for his or her own maintenance, including an appropriate level of retirement provision, the other spouse must pay a suitable contribution. In deciding whether such a contribution is to be made and, if so, in what amount and for how long, the following factors in particular must be considered:

1. the division of duties during the marriage;

2. the duration of the marriage;

3. the standard of living during the marriage;

4. the age and health of the spouses;

5. the income and assets of the spouses;

6. the extent and duration of child care still required of the spouses;

7. the vocational training and career prospects of the spouses and the likely cost of reintegration into working life;

8. expectancy of federal old age and survivor’s insurance benefits and of occupational or other private or state pensions, including the expected proceeds of any division of withdrawal benefits.

Exceptionally, a maintenance contribution may be denied or reduced if it would clearly be inequitable, particularly because the spouse otherwise entitled to receive such contribution:

1. has grossly neglected his or her duty to contribute to the maintenance of the family;

2. has wilfully brought about his or her own indigence;

3. has committed a serious criminal offense against the other spouse or a person close to him or her.

As is seen, the Swiss judge is granted with wide discretionary power with respect to postmarital alimony. Article 125 ZGB is indeed the statutory version of the criteria developed in practice by the judges by way of using their discretionary powers (Article 4 ZGB).

5. Different doctrinal opinions in the debate on the duration of poverty alimony

With the marriage union, the spouses are obliged to be in solidarity and to participate in the expenses of the marriage with their labor and assets as much as they can afford (Article 185 TCC, Article 159 ZGB). As long as the conditions exist, even after the dissolution of marriage, this obligation of solidarity continues to exist economically under the name of poverty alimony. The underlying idea is, based on social and moral considerations, the protection of the trust formed by marriage and supporting the spouse who will be adversely affected by divorce in economic sense [1].

Article 175 TCC has caused controversy recently since it allows to decide on poverty alimony indefinitely. Poverty alimony can be paid either in lump sum or in the form of annuity. In practice, generally, it is decided to be paid in the form of annuity [4]. Debate with respect to the duration of the alimony comes to the fore when it is decided in the form of annuity. The indefiniteness of poverty alimony is the result of this debate [9].

The discussion under Turkish law dates back to the amendment made with the Law No. 3444 in 1988. Prior to the amendment, Article 144 of former TCC restricted the poverty alimony with a period of 1 year. By then, the focus of the debate was the incompatibility of one-year period with the purpose of alimony [9]. Indeed, it was stated that “poverty alimony is an institution that has been accepted purely by social and moral considerations. However, since it can be ruled for (one year) finally in our country, it does not give practical results suitable for the purpose of its acceptance” [10]. The amendment modified Article 144 former TCC and introduced that the poverty alimony can be granted indefinitely. Another amendment was the removal of the condition of “falling into gross poverty”.

Article 175 TCC provides the right to request poverty alimony to both parties, without making any distinction in terms of gender of the spouse. Since mostly it is the female spouse who requests this alimony, the “time debate” stems from the woman’s request of indefinite alimony after divorce. The main point of criticism is the introduction of an obligation to pay alimony for lifetime, which is regarded as not equitable [7]. Akipek/Akıntürk/Ateş states that the modification made in Article 144 former TCC was the result of doctrinal criticisms on the one-year time limit and founds this criticism as justified [1]. Zevkliler also supports the modification in the former TCC [3]. Similarly, Şıpka states that alimony should not be time-limited since the time-limitation may cause unfair results [11].

A closer look at Article 175 TCC brings another approach to the debate. This approach argues that it is not legally correct to conclude that Article 175 TCC directly provides indefinite alimony; although the judge is allowed to render alimony indefinitely, in each concrete case, the judge should be able to decide on the duration of the alimony [12, 13]. Another view in the same direction supports that the provision, in fact, does not introduce an upper limit; the judge, by using its discretionary power, should be able to set a limit and thus order a time-limited alimony [5, 11].

According to the practice of Turkish Court of Cassation, if the parties do not request alimony for a certain period or if the alimony was not agreed upon as time-limited in the consensual divorce protocol, the judge has no discretion in determining the duration of the alimony. The Court held that (Y2HD, 11.07.2012, 2012/14282E., 2012/19487 K.) “Poverty alimony in the form of monthly income for the benefit of the defendant was ordered, and the poverty alimony was limited to four years. As a reason for the limitation, the Court stated that ‘the assignment of indefinite alimony would not be in accordance with fairness, and the limitation to four years, taking into account the age of the parties, was in accordance with equity’. The law did not limit the poverty alimony to a certain period, it stipulated that this alimony could be requested indefinitely. The aim is to support the spouse who will fall into poverty due to divorce by the other to meet the minimum living requirements. In this regard, unless the requesting party explicitly states, limiting the alimony to a certain period of time means to include an element that is not included in the law. In cases where the law grants the judge discretionary power or orders to consider the requirements of the situation or justified reasons, the judge decides on an equitable basis (Article 4 TCC). The law does not order the judge to give any discretion regarding the duration of the alimony, and to determine the duration by taking into account the requirements of the situation or justified reasons. Since the law clearly stipulates that this alimony should be indefinite, unless the party asked for limitation, limiting alimony to a certain period of time by way of using discretionary power, constitutes a clear violation of the law” [7]. Şıpka argues that literal interpretation of Article 175 TCC grants the judge with the discretionary power and adds that “removing the indefiniteness of poverty alimony with an amendment in law and introducing an upper time limit shall lead to unfair results in most of the concrete cases. Especially in our country, considering the classical mother model where due to reasons such as the wife being a housewife, being under-educated, not even being literate, having to take care of the children, and being deprived of the financial means to make a living after marriage that lasted for many years and ended in divorce, the possibility of receiving indefinite alimony should also not be abolished” [11].

Another view supports the application of the clean-break principle. This principle means the termination of the ties with the end of the marriage and the severance of the economic relations of the parties [9, 14]. With the divorce, the property rights are shared at once and the bond of the spouses ends economically [14]. In the clean-break principle, alimony is regarded only as a temporary support given to the spouse who will suffer financial difficulties, until he/she achieves economic independence [14]. Akipek Öcal states that with the dissolution of the marriage, a structure should be established in which the spouses can terminate the social and economic relationship between them as soon as possible and underlines that the indefinite request for alimony should be subject to certain conditions [12]. Despite the obligation of solidarity, the necessity of individuals to earn their own living cannot be ignored. When the marriage ends, the parties should also need to separate their ties [15]. Although the literal interpretation of Article 175 TCC supports the indefinite order of poverty alimony, solely literal interpretation should be avoided; teleological interpretation, by way of applying the clean-break principle, leads to the conclusion that the poverty alimony could be limited in time in accordance with the needs of the alimony creditor [15]. Under the practice of Turkish Court of Cassation, the existence of the obligation to pay poverty alimony is subject to the continuation of the state of poverty of the alimony creditor. Such practice is regarded as a reflection of the clean-break principle. Although this principle is not explicitly mentioned in the court decisions, it is not completely ignored [15].

From another perspective, the basis of the discussion on the duration of the alimony is related to the question of whether Article 175 TCC is of mandatory nature [11, 12, 16]. By way of literal interpretation, it is argued that this provision is not mandatory, and thus, the judge has discretion [17]. According to Dural/Öğüz/Gümüs, Article 175 TCC, in its current wording, does not grant the judge with discretionary power with respect to duration [9]. The authors also argue that, de lege ferenda, the clean break principle should be adopted under Turkish law by amending the law, “provided that the principle of post-marital solidarity is not weakened excessively by giving undue weight to the principle of ending the bond between spouses as soon as possible, given the economic and social situation of women in Turkey” [9]. Another view underlines that “(…) there should be no harm in requesting alimony indefinitely as long as the duration of the marriage is considered and the alimony request of the party, who has the capacity to work but violates the principle of honesty by choosing not to work arbitrarily, is prevented” [6]. Oktay-Özdemir states the need to develop some criteria to help in the realization of equity when determining the amount and duration of poverty alimony. Introducing such criteria by law will serve to eliminate the differences in application. In particular, objective criteria such as the duration of the marriage, the distribution of duties in marriage, age, health status, and the sacrifices made within the marriage need to be taken into consideration [18].

6. Our view on the duration of poverty alimony

At the heart of debate on the “time limit/indefiniteness” of poverty alimony lies a critic question of interpretation. How to interpret Article 175 TCC? Does it grant power of discretion to the judge in terms of duration? As in Swiss law, introducing criteria for determining the duration is another option. Although the Swiss Civil Code is considered as the reference source for Turkish law, it is important to note that solutions for problems in real life is searched at abstract legal rules. Social structures and dynamics of society can justify different legal solutions. While the legal problems of different societies are basically similar, the proposed solutions may differ. In this study, we prefer to approach the debate from this perspective and with respect to the term “indefinite”, to question the applicability of clean-break principle.

Under Swiss law, the postmarital alimony obligation also includes the maintenance of the children [8]. In a sense, it provides support for both the care of children and the economic maintenance of the spouse. In Swiss law, there is a 10/16 rule for child support. According to this rule, the spouse with custody can work half-day when the child turns to the age of 10 and can work full-time when the child turns to the age of 16 [8, 19]. The amount of alimony is determined accordingly. It is also stated that postmarital alimony is gradually losing its importance in Swiss law since spousal support is not requested in more than 70% of divorce suits [8].

Under Turkish legal system, for the postmarital stage, there is a separate type of alimony for children. For Türkiye, 2022 divorce data of TUIK (Turkish Statistical Institute) shows that while the number of divorced couples was 175.779 in 2021, it was 180.954 in 2022. When the divorce cases are analyzed according to the duration of marriage, it is seen that 32.7% of the divorces in 2022 occur within the first 5 years of marriage, and 21.6% within the 6–10 years of marriage [20]. Considering the employment rates according to TUIK data, the employment rate of women is less than half of men. According to the results of the survey on household labor force, the rate of employed people aged 15 and over in 2021 was 45.2%. This rate is 28.0% for women and 62.8% for men [21].

A research conducted on a database containing judicial decisions regarding the demand for poverty alimony between 2012 and 2019 reports that when the first 83 decisions were examined, it was not understood whether the request for alimony was made by female or male spouse due to the use of the phrase plaintiff-defendant in 16 decisions; in the rest of the decisions, it was seen that the request for alimony was made by the female spouse. Accordingly, it is seen that under Turkish Law, the debate with respect to indefiniteness of the poverty alimony is basically stemming from the request of the female spouse [17].

In jurisdictions that have abandoned the principle of fault in divorce law, poverty alimony has started be questioned. Imposing alimony on the non-faulty spouse for life time is discussed [14]. Poverty alimony is one of the financial consequences of divorce; however, regardless of the fault requirement in divorce law, the poverty alimony does not qualify as “compensation”. This justifies why the obligation to pay poverty alimony is independent of fault. The fault is of importance only for the request; the requesting spouse must be either faultless or less at fault in the divorce.

We support that Article 175 TCC should be read in conjunction with the following provision. According to Article 176 TCC, “(…) The pecuniary compensation or alimony that is decided to be paid in the form of annuity is automatically terminated in the event of the remarriage of the creditor or the death of one of the parties; if the creditor lives as if he/she is de facto married without official marriage or the state of poverty ceases or he/she leads dishonourable life, it is abolished by a court decision. The judge may decide to increase or decrease the income in cases where the financial situation of the parties changes or when equity requires it. The judge may, upon request, decide how much the material compensation or alimony that is decided to be paid in the form of annuity will be paid in the coming years according to the social and economic conditions of the parties”.

The conditions stipulated under Article 175 TCC and grounds for abolishment set forth in Article 176 TCC lead us to conclude that obligation to pay poverty alimony does not necessarily last for lifetime. The Court held that (Y2HD, 14.01.2013, 2012/13534 E., 2013/264 K.) under Article 175 TCC, poverty alimony cannot be ordered in favor of the spouse who has more income [7] or (Y2HD, 14.01.2013, 2012/13540 E., 2013/268 K.) with a similar economic situation [7]. Also, it was decided that (Y2HD, 06.05.2014, 2013/28754 E., 2014/10439 K.) “From the investigation and the evidence gathered, it is understood that both parties work in textiles. It was accepted by the court that the plaintiff (woman) is working. Considering that the plaintiff is working and the income levels of the parties are close to each other, it is not correct to order alimony for the benefit of the plaintiff (woman), since the plaintiff (woman) will not fall into poverty by divorce and the conditions of Article 175 have not been fulfilled” [22]; and (Y2HD, 16.10.2019, 2019/2007 E., 2019/10211 K.) “according to the economic and social situation research conducted by the court, it is understood that the plaintiff (woman) works at minimum wage and the defendant (man) works at minimum wage and does not have any other income. In this case, the incomes of the plaintiff (woman) and the defendant (man) are equal. It cannot be said that the conditions of Article 175 of the Turkish Civil Code are fulfilled for the benefit of women. It was not correct to rule on alimony for the benefit of the plaintiff woman” [22].

In the final analysis, we are of the opinion that de lege lata, the phrase of indefiniteness in Article 175 TCC, does not seem to be grossly problematic. First, Article 175 TCC states that the spouse “(…) may request alimony indefinitely”. By applying the principle of in toto et pars continetur, one may conclude that time limitation is indeed inherent in the scope of the word “indefinitely”. Thus, Article 175 TCC, as it stands, is suitable to read it as the alimony may be ordered either for a certain period of time or without any time limit (indefinitely). Secondly, the judge, by exercising its discretionary power, should evaluate the request for poverty alimony by taking into consideration objective criteria such as the duration of the marriage, the requesting party’s capacity to work, and the principle of honesty (Article 2 TCC). Third, the word “indefinite” does not mean “lifetime”. Article 175 TCC is subject to Article 176 TCC. If the conditions of Article 176 TCC are met, the obligation to pay poverty alimony is removed by court decision. Taking into account all of these should significantly contribute to reaching a fair balance in each concrete case.

7. Conclusion

It is not easy to bring a sharp end to family relations. Despite the legal dissolution of a family law relationship, due to its nature, it inevitably continues to have anterograde influences. Poverty alimony is such a legal institution of family law. The underlying reason is the partial continuation of financial solidarity despite the termination of the marriage. The crucial question is, in terms of time, to what extent should it continue? For how long is fair to lay this burden on the spouse despite his/her lack of fault in divorce? The duration of poverty alimony has long been controversial in Turkish law. The former article 144 of TCC was criticized because it limited the request of poverty alimony with one-year period; the current Article 175 TCC is again criticized since it allows for indefinite request. In 2012, the Turkish Constitutional Court had ruled that the phrase “undefinite” is not unconstitutional since it is not to be understood as a lifetime obligation. Indeed, at the heart of this debate lies a critical question of interpretation. When the conditions of request under Article 175 TCC are considered and read together with the grounds for abolishment under Article 176 TCC, the limits of the poverty alimony become more clear. The authors of this paper also suggest an alternative way of interpretation to the phrase of indefiniteness; due to the principle of in toto et pars continetur, it may be concluded that the provision itself inherently grants power to judge to order alimony for a certain period of time.