The offense of violation of the inviolability of dwelling, which was introduced in the Turkish Criminal Code in order to prevent third parties from violating the right to inviolability of the dwelling, which is protected by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, plays an important role in protecting personal freedom and healthy sustainability of family unity. In this offense, the absence of consent of persons authorized to give consent is regulated as an element of the crime. In this study, the 3rd paragraph of Article 116 of the Turkish Penal Code, which states that the consent of one of the family members is valid as long as it is directed to the legitimate purpose and prevents the occurrence of the typicality of the offense in the offense of the violation of the inviolability of dwelling in cases where the dwelling is shared by family members, is perused. In this context, while the concept of legitimate purpose that draws the limits of the consent of family members is being perused, the legal value protected by the offense and the absence of consent as an element of characteristics were also addressed. The purpose of this study, within the framework of the application of the relevant paragraph, is to discuss the issues that cause conflicts in the doctrine and judicial decisions and that may cause hesitation when passing a judgment on some concrete cases and to make suggestions about the problems identified. For this purpose, the opinions in the doctrine have been perused and the relevant judicial decisions have been reviewed. In this respect, our study is unique