Who Owns The Jewelry Gifted at a Wedding??

The law contains no direct provision on who owns ornamental gold or jewelry gifted during a wedding. Under the Court of Cassation's settled case law, jewelry given during the wedding — regardless of who gave it or to whom it was pinned — is presumed, unless proven otherwise, to have been gifted to the woman, and acquires the status of her personal property under Article 220 of the Civil Code (TMK).

One exception to this general rule applies, by custom, to items considered exclusively for men's use; cufflinks or a tie pin, for example, may be treated as belonging to the man on this basis. Cash gifted at a wedding, by contrast, is a separate question that depends on the facts and evidence of the specific case.

Where the jewelry remains with the husband, the wife may file a claim for the return of this property, which is treated as her personal property. Such a claim is typically made in the alternative: return of the items themselves as the primary request, and payment of their monetary value if return in kind is not possible. Where the jewelry has been converted to cash or spent, a claim for its value becomes the relevant remedy.

The claim can be raised within an ongoing divorce case or filed as a separate lawsuit after the divorce decree becomes final. Because a property-division case does not cover jewelry treated as personal property under Article 220 of the TMK, this claim needs to be raised separately.

Under the general evidentiary rules in Article 190 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 6 of the Civil Code, the burden of proving the existence of the jewelry and the entitlement to its return lies with the party making the claim. The claimant should specify, as concretely as possible in the petition, the type, quality, fineness, weight, and quantity of the items.

In practice, this is typically supported by wedding photographs and videos, a dowry record, witness statements, and, where necessary, an expert jeweler's report. The burden of proving that the jewelry was given to the husband on a non-returnable basis and was spent lies with the party relying on that claim.

Under the Court of Cassation's case law, where a woman hands her jewelry to her husband, it is presumed, as a rule, that the items were given to be returned. The burden of proving that the jewelry was given to him outright, without any condition of return, lies with the husband; if he cannot prove this, he may be held liable to return the value of the items.

Similarly, a presumption can arise that a woman who leaves the marital home voluntarily also takes her jewelry with her; however, this presumption may not apply where the woman was forced to leave due to violence or where the items were taken from her, and this depends on the facts of the specific case.

Because a claim for the return of jewelry in kind is based on the right of ownership, no statute of limitations generally applies to such a claim. Where the claim instead seeks the monetary value of the items, however, it is treated as a form of compensation and becomes subject to a specific limitation period running from the finalization of the divorce decree.

For this reason, it is worth clarifying, before filing a case, whether the jewelry still physically exists and in what form the return claim should be framed.

Beyond items customarily reserved for men, other exceptions to the presumption that jewelry belongs to the woman can arise. For example, if it is proven that the jewelry was spent on wedding expenses, shared household costs, or the purchase of an asset, and that this spending occurred with the woman's consent and without any condition of return, the husband may be relieved of the obligation to return it.

Whether such exceptions apply depends on the evidence submitted to the file and the particular facts of the case. For more comprehensive information on how a jewelry claim is handled alongside other divorce claims, you can review our İzmir divorce lawyer page. Support in family law matters is provided in Karabağlar, as well as Konak, Buca, and Balçova.

Av. Mehmet Yücesoy

İzmir Attorney & Legal Consultancy