The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Meureudu Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), and ordered the respondent to return half of her dowry (mahar) to the appellant.
The Court upheld the decision of the lower court, but also acknowledged that in his appeal, the appellant had objected to the way in which information provided by one of his witnesses had been appropriated by another party. The Court noted, however, that this was not problematic as the proceeding before the lower court was its own proceeding. Moreover, the Court emphasised that the relationship between the two parties was already at an end, and that to perpetuate the relationship when the parties would continue to quarrel would be worse than granting a divorce. Similarly, to place blame on one of the parties was not what was envisaged by art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, the focus of which was on the actual disintegration of a marriage itself.