In a story that has captured international attention and sparked debate about animal rights and modern family law, a Turkish man has been ordered to pay his ex-wife quarterly “cat support” payments amounting to 10,000 Turkish liras (approximately US$240) for the upkeep of their two pet cats. The unusual settlement, finalized in Istanbul, marks the first known legal case in Turkey where a former spouse is required to provide financial support for pets after divorce.
It highlights a shifting legal and social landscape in which animals are being recognized not as property, but as sentient family members deserving of lifelong care. This case, involving a man named Bugra and his ex-wife Ezgi, has become a talking point in Turkey’s growing pet economy and has far-reaching implications for divorce law, animal welfare, and cultural attitudes toward companion animals.
Man Ordered to Pay $240 Every Quarter to Ex-Wife for ‘Cat Support’
Turkey’s pet ownership has expanded dramatically in recent years, with its pet population reaching nearly 21 million in 2023. As more households adopt animals, the question of what happens to pets when relationships break down has become increasingly relevant. In this case, the couple, after two years of marriage, decided to divorce due to serious personal differences but faced a complex dilemma over their two cats, who had been a shared responsibility during their marriage.
In the divorce settlement, Ezgi was granted full custody of the cats, while Bugra agreed to pay 10,000 liras every three months over a ten-year period to ensure their care. This arrangement includes covering expenses such as food, vaccinations, grooming, and general well-being. The payments will continue until the cats’ natural deaths and will be adjusted annually to reflect inflation. Additionally, Bugra is required to pay a lump sum of 550,000 liras (approximately US$13,000) in financial compensation to his former spouse, unrelated to the animal support payments.
What distinguishes this case from ordinary divorce settlements is the legal framing of pet care as a distinct obligation, separate from alimony or child support. According to Turkish lawyer Aylin Esra Eren, this is not alimony under Turkish law, as alimony can only be paid to a spouse or child. Instead, the payments represent a contractual commitment to sustain the animals’ welfare—an acknowledgment that pets, while not human dependents, have emotional and material needs that must be legally safeguarded.
Read : Bizarre! Tiger, Cheetah and Leopard Get CT Scans on Same Day at Big Cat Sanctuary in Kent
The case comes at a time when Turkey’s animal welfare laws are among the strictest in the region. Pets are legally classified as “living beings” rather than “property,” a definition that places moral and legal responsibility on owners to ensure their animals’ well-being. Abandoning a pet—particularly one that has been microchipped, as most in Turkey are—is a criminal offense, punishable by fines of up to 60,000 liras (around US$1,400).
Read : Livie Rose Henderson Loses DoorDash Job Over Viral Video of Alleged Delivery Assault
The legal recognition of animals’ rights represents a broader societal evolution in Turkey, where discussions around animal welfare have moved from charity to justice. For couples like Bugra and Ezgi, this means that emotional attachments to pets can now translate into binding legal responsibilities, even after separation.
Pets as Family Members: Emotional and Ethical Dimensions
Beyond its legal novelty, the case resonates with many because it acknowledges the deep emotional bonds between humans and their pets. For Ezgi and Bugra, the cats were not merely household animals—they were part of the family unit formed during their marriage. When the marriage ended, the emotional question of who would care for them had to be addressed alongside financial and legal matters.
Lawyer Aylin Esra Eren emphasized that cats, like children, require consistent care, stability, and emotional attention. They depend on their guardians for food, shelter, medical treatment, and companionship. The agreement ensures that these needs will continue to be met, shielding the animals from the neglect that often follows human separation.
This legal recognition of pets as emotional dependents reflects a global shift in attitudes. In many countries, the concept of “pet custody” is gaining traction, with courts increasingly treating animals as family members rather than objects to be divided like property. In countries such as Spain, Portugal, and France, recent legal reforms have explicitly recognized animals as sentient beings. Similarly, in the United States and the United Kingdom, courts have occasionally taken pets’ welfare into account in divorce settlements.
In Turkey, the situation has particular resonance due to its urban pet culture. Istanbul alone is home to millions of cats and dogs, many of which live semi-independently alongside humans. The city’s unique relationship with animals has been documented and celebrated in media and art, portraying Turkish society as one that deeply respects the coexistence between people and animals.
However, the growth of the pet economy—spanning veterinary care, grooming services, and luxury pet products—has also commercialized this relationship. With rising pet ownership comes the responsibility of legal clarity in family and financial arrangements. This case exemplifies how deeply pets are woven into the social fabric, where love and law now intersect.
Critics, however, warn that legalizing pet-related financial settlements could lead to misuse. Some worry that individuals might use pets as leverage during divorce negotiations, complicating proceedings or inflating financial demands. Others argue that such agreements, while morally sound, risk over-legalizing private emotional relationships.
Still, the overwhelming public reaction to this case has been positive. Many see it as a sign of moral progress—a recognition that animals deserve care and protection regardless of human conflicts. One social media user commented, “It is great to see growing respect for the status of pets. I hope more countries follow this example and recognize the legal rights of animals.” Another, more cautious observer, noted, “We should be careful because pets could become bargaining chips in divorce settlements, leading to unnecessary disputes.”
Implications for Law, Society, and Future Divorces
The “cat support” ruling could have long-lasting effects on Turkish family law and animal welfare policy. As a precedent-setting case, it introduces the idea that pet care obligations can be formally embedded in divorce agreements, ensuring that animals’ welfare remains a legal concern long after a relationship ends.
Legal experts believe this development will likely influence how courts interpret pet ownership in future disputes. It could pave the way for standardized guidelines on pet custody, financial responsibility, and welfare standards. For instance, courts might begin to assess factors such as each partner’s financial stability, living conditions, and emotional connection to the animal when determining custody.
This legal innovation also underscores the growing overlap between human family structures and animal companionship. For many people, especially younger urban couples, pets often replace or precede children. They symbolize commitment, shared responsibility, and emotional support. When these relationships dissolve, the question of “pet custody” becomes not just sentimental but deeply ethical.
The Turkish case may also inspire legislative reform. Although Turkey’s animal protection law already treats pets as living beings, there is room for more specific regulation in family and civil law contexts. Legal scholars suggest that as pet ownership continues to rise, legal frameworks must evolve to cover not only protection against abuse but also welfare in cases of separation, relocation, or inheritance.
Read : Bizarre! Bird Poop Helps Arrest A Man Accused of Shooting Detroit Businessman Eddie Jawad
The economic dimension is equally important. The pet care industry in Turkey has become a multi-billion-lira market, encompassing everything from veterinary services to pet hotels and insurance. This makes the notion of “pet support” not just a moral issue but also a practical financial one. For the couple involved, the agreed payments ensure the cats’ long-term welfare and reflect a realistic understanding of the costs of modern pet ownership.
At a cultural level, the case may influence how Turkish society perceives responsibility toward animals. By legally recognizing the duty to care for pets after divorce, the courts have effectively endorsed the idea that love for animals carries enduring obligations. It sends a clear message that pets are not disposable companions but permanent members of the family, whose welfare cannot be ignored when human relationships fail.
From a global perspective, Turkey’s example adds to a growing body of progressive legal thought around animal welfare. While Western countries have begun addressing these issues through legislative reform, Turkey’s case shows that judicial creativity can achieve similar outcomes within existing frameworks. The case could serve as a model for other nations grappling with similar questions, particularly in regions where pets are gaining social prominence but lack clear legal protection.
For Bugra and Ezgi, the settlement ensures that their two cats will continue to live comfortably, cared for, and protected for the remainder of their lives. It also closes their marriage with an act of shared responsibility—perhaps the final gesture of compassion in a relationship that otherwise could not endure.
In the broader social context, this unusual agreement stands as a symbol of how modern life continues to blur the lines between human relationships and animal companionship. It also reflects an evolving legal consciousness, one that recognizes that caring for animals is not merely a personal choice but a moral and legal duty.
As Turkey navigates the complexities of a growing pet-owning society, this ruling may come to be seen as a landmark—one that transforms not only divorce proceedings but also the way people think about love, responsibility, and the place of animals in human families. It underscores a simple yet profound truth: when we choose to share our lives with animals, we also choose to care for them, in sickness and in health, together or apart, for as long as they live.