Imagine a man who spends most of his time on Instagram, incessantly liking photos of other women. He doesn’t send messages or pursue any relationships, but this simple, repetitive habit gradually becomes a serious issue in his marriage—one that could even lead to court.
In this context, Turkey’s Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that has resonated far beyond a typical judicial decision, sparking widespread public and legal debate. According to this ruling, a husband’s act of liking other women’s photos on social media can be considered by the court as valid grounds for divorce. This decision originated from a real case in the city of Konya and has now become a legal precedent in Turkey’s highest judicial authority.
But why has a simple “like” become so significant? The story began when a woman went to court, stating that her husband persistently liked other women’s photos on social media. In her view, this behavior caused humiliation, eroded trust, inflicted emotional harm, and weakened the foundation of their marriage.
The Turkish family court initially examined this conduct and concluded that liking other women’s photos is not merely a simple online activity but can be considered a form of behavior damaging to marital trust. From the court’s perspective, such actions undermine the mutual sense of security and respect in a marriage and can therefore harm the family’s foundation. The appeals court upheld this analysis, and ultimately, Turkey’s Supreme Court affirmed the earlier rulings, stating that this type of virtual behavior can constitute harm to the family foundation and serve as legitimate grounds for divorce.
The legal significance of this ruling lies in a subtle yet crucial point. The court explicitly did not classify this behavior as sexual infidelity but regarded it as a form of emotional infidelity and marital misconduct. In Turkey’s legal system, divorce is typically examined based on the fault of one spouse; that is, the court seeks to determine who played the primary role in the breakdown of the marriage.
This determination of fault directly impacts the financial outcomes of the case, including alimony, compensation, and other financial rights. Therefore, if the husband is found at fault in such a case, he may be ordered to pay compensation, or the wife may be entitled to greater financial rights. This ruling is the first to seriously demonstrate that digital behaviors and online activities can also play a role in determining fault.
Reactions to this ruling have been mixed. Supporters argue that the decision aligns with the realities of modern life, showing that online behaviors can have profound psychological effects on marital relationships. They see this ruling as a step toward protecting women’s dignity and emotions within the family, indicating that courts now take the virtual sphere seriously as part of individuals’ real lives.
On the other hand, critics argue that the ruling excessively invades individuals’ privacy and expands the definition of marital misconduct too broadly. According to this group, such an approach could increase distrust between spouses and, instead of reducing tension, raise divorce rates. Some legal scholars also question the ruling’s legal foundations, suggesting it may face significant interpretive challenges in the future.
This legal perspective is most compatible with countries like Turkey, which follow a fault-based divorce system. In contrast, many Western countries, such as Australia, Canada, and much of Europe, operate under a no-fault divorce system. In these countries, courts generally do not concern themselves with who is at fault or what specific behaviors occurred; it is enough to prove that the relationship has reached an impasse and continuing the marriage is impossible. In such systems, liking or not liking posts on social media typically plays no role in the court’s decision. This difference clearly illustrates how each country’s culture, legal structure, and social perspective shape the definitions of concepts like fidelity, trust, and misconduct.
From a psychological standpoint, this ruling can be analyzed within the framework of a concept known as micro-cheating. Micro-cheating refers to behaviors that are not overt or physical infidelity and may seem minor or insignificant on the surface but gradually erode the boundaries of trust. Persistently liking photos of others is precisely this type of behavior—seemingly simple at first glance but capable of destroying the sense of emotional security and self-worth in the other partner.
Overall, the ruling by Turkey’s Supreme Court is not merely about a “like”; it is a sign of the increasing complexity of human relationships in the digital age. It shows that the boundaries between private life, virtual behavior, and marital commitments are shifting, and the judicial system is striving to adapt to these changes.
At the same time, this decision raises important questions for society: To what extent can online behaviors be subject to legal judgment? Where exactly do the boundaries between privacy and marital responsibility lie? Do traditional family laws have the capacity to address the realities of the digital world? The answers to these questions will likely become clearer in the coming years as similar cases emerge.
Faeze Aghamohammady