Türk-İsviçre Hukukunda Ana ve Babanın Eğitimi Devam Eden Ergin Çocuğa Karşı Nafaka Yükümlülüğünde Çocuğun Bakım ve Eğitim Masraflarının Karşılanmasının Ana Babadan Beklenebilir Olması Koşuluna Eleştirel Bir Bakış
Türk hukukunda ana ve babanın, çocuklarının bakım ve eğitim giderlerini karşılama yükümlülüğü, kural olarak çocuğun ergin olmasına kadar devam eder. Ancak çocuğun eğitimi devam ediyorsa, bu yükümlülük, çocuk ergin olduktan sonra da söz konusu olabilir. Bu husus, 4721 sayılı Türk Medenî Kanunu (TMK) m 328/II’de, “Çocuk ergin olduğu halde eğitimi devam ediyorsa, ana ve baba durum ve koşullara göre kendilerinden beklenebilecek ölçüde olmak üzere, eğitimi sona erinceye kadar çocuğa bakmakla yükümlüdürler.” şeklinde düzenlenmiştir. Bu düzenle mede yer alan “kendilerinden beklenebilecek ölçüde” ifadesi, muğlak bir ölçü sunmakta olup, hükmün kapsamı ve sınırları hususunda hukukî belirsizlikler yaratmaktadır. Bahsi geçen ölçü, somut olayın koşullarına göre, tarafların (ana baba ile çocuk) mali durumu ve aralarındaki kişisel ilişki dikkate alınmak suretiyle değerlendirilmelidir. Tek başına mali koşullar, hüküm kurulabilmesi için yeter değildir. Zira ana baba ile çocuk arasındaki kişisel ilişki de söz konusu giderlerin akıbeti üzerinde etkilidir. Bundan başka, TMK m 328/II’nin uygulanması bakımından “eğitim” kavramı önemli bir role sahiptir. Bu bağlamda, özellikle lise mezuniyeti sonrası üniversiteye hazırlık kursu, üniversite eğitimi, dil kursu, yüksek lisans, doktora gibi eğitim faaliyetlerinin TMK m 328/II kapsamında değerlendirilip değer lendirilemeyeceği açıklığa kavuşturulmayı beklemektedir. Nitekim TMK m 328/II’nin, yorumlanmaya ihtiyaç duyulan ve hâkime önemli ölçüde geniş takdir yetkisi veren bir hüküm olduğu söylenebilir. Çalışmamızda, eğitimi devam eden ergin çocuğun bakım ve eğitim nafakasının düzenlendiği TMK m 328/II hükmünün, kazuistik bir yöntemle yeniden düzenlenmesinin isabetli olacağı kanaati paylaşılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonuç kısmında önerilen düzenleme ile, yukarıda bahsi geçen hukukî belirsizliklerin giderilmesinde fayda sağlanması amaçlanmıştır. Ayrıca, önerilen düzenlemenin, anayasada koruma altında bulunan ve uluslararası anlaşmalarda da yer alan eğitim hakkına daha fazla hizmet edeceği düşünülmektedir.
A Critical Analysis of the Condition in Turkish and Swiss Law Requiring Parents to Cover the Care and Education Expenses of Major Children Still Pursuing Education as Part of Their Maintenance Obligation
In Turkish law, the obligation of parents to cover their children’s care and education expenses, as a rule, continues until the child reaches the age of majority. However, if the child’s education is ongoing, this obligation may persist even after the child becomes a major. This matter is regulated under Article 328/II of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) No. 4721, which states the following: "If the child has reached the age of majority but their education continues, the parents are obliged to support the child until the completion of their education to the extent that can reasonably be expected of them, considering their circumstances and conditions." The phrase "to the extent that can reasonably be expected of them" introduces an ambiguous standard, creating legal uncertainties regarding the provision’s scope and limits. This standard should be assessed considering the specific circumstances of the case, considering the parties’ financial situation (parents and child) and their personal relationship. Financial circumstances alone are insufficient for making a decision because the personal relationship between parents and the child also impacts the outcome of such obligations. Furthermore, the concept of "education" plays a significant role in the application of Article 328/II of the TMK. In this context, it remains unclear whether educational activities such as university preparatory courses after high school graduation, university education, language courses, master's programmes, or doctoral studies fall within the scope of Article 328/II. Article 328/II of the TMK can be described as a provision that requires interpretation and grants judges considerable discretionary power. In our study, we argue that the provision governing the maintenance and education support for major children whose education continues, as outlined in Article 328/II of the TMK, should be redraughted using a casebased method. The proposed amendment, which is presented in the conclusion of this study, aims to address the aforementioned legal uncertainties. Additionally, the proposed regulation is believed to better serve the right to education, which is constitutionally protected and enshrined in international agreements.
In Turkish law, the obligation of parents to cover their children’s maintenance and education expenses is regulated under Articles 327 et seq of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) numbered 4721. As a rule, this obligation continues until the child reaches the age of majority. However, if the child’s education continues, the parents’ obligation to cover the maintenance and education expenses may also persist after the child reaches the age of majority. Article 328/II of the TMK explicitly regulates this matter.
Various legal uncertainties exist regarding the scope and limits of the maintenance obligation (TMK Art 328/II) of parents for children who continue their education. In interpreting the relevant provision, ambiguities arise concerning the meaning and scope of the phrase "to the extent that can reasonably be expected from them." The expression "to the extent that can reasonably be expected" in TMK Art 328/II provides a vague standard for determining the maintenance obligation of parents towards children who continue their education despite reaching the age of majority. This standard must be evaluated by considering the economic and personal dimensions of each case’s specific circumstances. Factors such as the parents’ financial situation, the child’s needs, and the type and duration of education must be considered to assess whether the maintenance obligation is economically reasonable. Whether the child contributes to their own livelihood or is reasonably expected to do so should be considered to ensure a fair balance between the parties. The legislative intent and doctrinal interpretations emphasise that, alongside economic conditions, the personal relationship between the parents and the child should also be evaluated. Accordingly, if the child unjustifiably evades fulfilling their family law obligations or if there is no personal relationship between the parents and the child, the maintenance obligation may be terminated. In this context, judges are granted broad discretionary powers to decide in equity, considering all the circumstances of the specific case. In cases where the personal relationship between the parents and the child has deteriorated, maintenance under Article 328/II of the TMK may be denied or terminated due to "personal unreasonableness," or the amount and/or duration of maintenance may be reduced. Indeed, for parents to be obligated to cover the educational expenses of an adult child, a personal relationship must exist between the parents and the adult child that justifies such a sacrifice.
It would be highly appropriate to revise the provision regarding the maintenance of major children’s education and maintenance expenses in a manner that serves the right to education, which is protected under the Constitution and enshrined in international agreements, and in a way that benefits the child. Instead of a provision that requires interpretation and grants judges broad discretion, a more detailed regulation should be introduced. The following proposed regulation could help address the aforementioned issues:
"A major child’s claim for maintenance shall be denied or restricted in exceptional cases where it is clearly deemed unjust, considering all the circumstances of the case.” Such cases include the following: (1) deliberate creation of a state of need by the major child, (2) commission of a serious crime by the major child against the maintenance obligor or their close relatives, (3) severe and culpable breach of family law obligations by the major child towards the maintenance obligor, and (4) undue delay or lack of good faith in pursuing education by the major child without significant justification."
Such a more casuistic regulation would better serve the right to education, which is protected at the constitutional level and under international agreements.
