Turkish family law recognizes several specific grounds for divorce under the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), each carrying distinct legal requirements and consequences. Among these, the ground regulated under TMK Article 162 \u2014 divorce due to an attempt on the spouse’s life \u2014 stands apart as one of the most serious. It reflects a fundamental legal principle: no marital fault or personal grievance can ever justify an attack on a human being’s right to life.<\/p>\n
TMK Article 162 provides: “Either spouse may file for divorce on the grounds that the other spouse has made an attempt on his or her life, subjected him or her to gross mistreatment, or gravely degrading conduct.”<\/em> Although attempt on life, gross mistreatment, and degrading conduct are all regulated within the same article, they constitute separate and independent grounds for divorce. A divorce action based on attempt on life has its own specific conditions, procedural rules, and legal consequences that must be examined independently.<\/p>\n Under TMK Article 162, an attempt on the spouse’s life encompasses any act carried out with the intention to kill, provided that death does not actually occur \u2014 since death would dissolve the marriage as a legal event, rendering divorce proceedings unnecessary. The act can be either positive, such as physically attacking or encouraging suicide, or negative, such as deliberately withholding necessary help from an injured spouse. Even preparatory acts undertaken with the intent to kill are sufficient to constitute this ground; the fact that the perpetrating spouse later abandons the plan does not eliminate the legal basis for divorce.<\/p>\n Crucially, the act must involve intent \u2014 the Turkish term “kast” (intent) is expressly used in the statute. Negligence or recklessness does not satisfy this requirement. For example, accidentally leaving a gas valve open does not amount to an attempt on life under this provision. Where a hidden intention to kill can be clearly inferred from an apparently negligent act, however, courts may still recognize it as an intentional act within the meaning of Article 162. Additionally, the perpetrating spouse must possess legal capacity at the time of the act; an attempt on life carried out by a spouse with a recognized mental illness falls outside the scope of Article 162 and is instead assessed under TMK Article 165 governing mental illness as a ground for divorce.<\/p>\n This ground is classified as both an absolute and a fault-based ground for divorce. Its absolute character means that once the attempt on life is proven, the court is obliged to grant the divorce \u2014 it is not required to further investigate whether the marriage has broken down irreparably. The fault-based character means that the petitioning spouse can seek compensation and other legal remedies tied to the degree of fault.<\/p>\n A significant aspect of this ground is that fault comparison between the spouses is not applicable here. Even if the petitioning spouse bears considerable fault in the marriage \u2014 for instance, having committed adultery \u2014 the other spouse’s act of attempting to take their life will always constitute the more serious wrong. No marital misconduct can be weighed against an attack on a person’s life.<\/p>\n The right to file for divorce under Article 162 may be extinguished in two ways. The first is forgiveness. TMK Article 162\/3 states that “the party who has forgiven the other has no right of action.”<\/em> Forgiveness need not follow any formal procedure \u2014 it may be expressed verbally, in writing, or even inferred from conduct, such as going on a joint holiday with the offending spouse despite the incident. Mere continuation of cohabitation, however, does not by itself constitute forgiveness.<\/p>\n The second is the lapse of time. TMK Article 162\/2 establishes that the right to sue lapses six months from the date the aggrieved spouse learns of the attempt, and in any case five years from the date the act occurred. These are limitation periods in the nature of forfeitures rather than ordinary statutes of limitations, meaning the court must take them into account automatically, even if the defendant does not raise them.<\/p>\n An attempt on a spouse’s life constitutes not only a ground for civil divorce but also a criminal offense under Turkish law. The filing of a divorce action under Article 162 does not require a parallel criminal prosecution. However, where criminal proceedings have been initiated concerning the same act, the family court must wait for the criminal court’s factual findings, as they are binding on the civil judge.<\/p>\n The legal consequences of a divorce granted on the basis of attempt on life extend across several areas of law. In terms of compensation, the innocent or less-at-fault spouse may claim both material damages under TMK Article 174\/1 \u2014 covering present and expected financial interests destroyed by the divorce \u2014 and non-material damages under TMK Article 174\/2, given that an attempt on life constitutes an undeniable violation of the most fundamental personal rights. Courts are expected to award higher non-material compensation in such cases compared to other divorce grounds, reflecting the gravity of the offense.<\/p>\n Regarding the division of marital property, TMK Article 236\/2 grants the court discretionary power to reduce or entirely eliminate the offending spouse’s share of the surplus value under the statutory matrimonial property regime. This is one of only two situations in Turkish law \u2014 the other being adultery \u2014 where such a reduction is permitted, underscoring the exceptional seriousness with which the law treats an attempt on a spouse’s life.<\/p>\n On the question of inheritance, TMK Article 181 provides that divorced spouses lose their statutory inheritance rights upon finalization of the divorce. TMK Article 181\/2 extends this principle to cases where the plaintiff dies during ongoing divorce proceedings: “Where one of the spouses dies while the divorce action is pending, the heirs of the deceased may continue the action, and if the fault of the other spouse is proven, the provisions of the first paragraph shall apply accordingly.”<\/em> In a divorce action based on attempt on life, this means that the heirs of the spouse whose life was threatened may continue the proceedings and, upon proving the defendant’s fault, deprive the surviving perpetrating spouse of inheritance rights.<\/p>\n As for child custody, the court determines custody based primarily on the best interests of the child. While the spouses’ conduct during the marriage is not the decisive factor, a spouse who has committed an act as serious as attempting to kill the other parent cannot be viewed as entirely neutral in the custody assessment. The court must carefully consider the potential risk that the violent parent may pose to the child, particularly where a pattern of violent behavior is established.<\/p>\n The alimony regime under TMK Article 175 \u2014 poverty alimony \u2014 may also come into play. A spouse who would fall into poverty as a result of the divorce may claim alimony provided that their fault is not heavier than that of the other spouse. Since the spouse who committed the attempt on life carries the heavier fault by definition, the aggrieved spouse will ordinarily satisfy this condition.<\/p>\nThe Nature of an Attempt on Life<\/h2>\n
An Absolute and Fault-Based Ground<\/h2>\n
Loss of the Right to Sue<\/h2>\n
Pending Criminal Proceedings<\/h2>\n
Legal Consequences of Divorce on This Ground<\/h2>\n
\n