SHARIAsource

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Bireuen Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shugra). The Court, however, dismissed the appeal, only effecting one minor change to the wording of point two in the decision of the lower court.

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court, granting the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra). The Court's only issue with the decision of the lower court was the wording used to declare the appellant and respondent divorced.

The Court overturned the decision of the Takengon Shari'a Court for several reasons. It noted that the lower court had erred in declaring the case to have failed because several of the plaintiffs had passed away. It also noted that because one of the beneficiaries was not included in the original complaint and, similarly, not all objects subject of the inheritance were included in the complaint, the decision should be overturned. The Court then specified how the items subject of the inheritance were to be distributed.

The Court upheld the appeal, acknowledging that because the respondents had failed to pay additional court costs in the first instance, the case could not be concluded and should, therefore, be erased from the court register. The Court also ordered the respondents to pay costs of IDR 583,000, as directed by the court of first instance.

The Court dismissed the appeal stating that the appellant lacked the judicial standing to object to the cancelling of a gift (hibah).

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the lower court to grant the respondent a revocable divorce. The Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the appellant had not paid the relevant appeal fee at the time of signing the relevant notice of appeal.

The Court upheld the appeal on the grounds that only devising property to the deceased's daughters, and not to the deceased's son and grandchildren, was contrary to shari'a.

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court (Meureudu Shari'a Court) insofar as the manner in which assets were to be distributed between the parties. It also increased the amount of child maintenance payable by the respondent to the appellant from IDR 800,000 per month to IDR 1 million, from the date of the decision until the two children are of age and independent.

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court, however, it restipulated (correctly) the beneficiaries.

The Court overturned the initial decision of the Jantho Shari'a Court on the grounds that, as the appellant had argued, the respondent lacked the necessary legal standing due to her own certified mental health problems.

The Court rendered the decision of the lower court (Meureudu Shari'a Court) null and void because it had failed to comply with procedural requirements contained in art 2 of Indonesian Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2008: crucially, that the court's decision is to acknowledge that the parties to a divorce proceeding have attempted to reconcile their differences via mediation, giving reference to the mediator's name and outcome of the mediation in its decision.

The Lhokseumawe Shari'a Court (lower court) had equally distributed to the parties their joint assets (two parcels of land).

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court, finding it to be legally sound and compliant.

The Court upheld the appeal, finding that the lower court (Lhoksukon Shari'a Court decision: 69/Pdt-G/2009/Msy-LSK) had erred in placing a higher burden of proof on the plaintiff than necessary, as well as failing to summons the defendant for hearings 3-8.

The Court upheld the appeal, ratifying the gift of a garden and rice field from T Bin T (deceased) to A Bin A (deceased).

The parties were married on 16 August 2002 and had two children. The parties had lived harmoniously until May 2011; however, the plaintiff submitted that she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly since January 2013. This was primarily due to:

1. the defendant confessing before his family to having had an extra-marital affair;
2. continuous irreconcilable arguing and fighting between the parties;
3. the defendant having breached his marriage vows (taklik-talak); and
4. the defendant having not been physically intimate with the plaintiff since September 2013.

Problems escalated in September 2013 resulting in both parties returning to their respective parents' homes. The plaintiff had attempted to reconcile with the defendant by bringing their families together to deliberate, but to no avail. The court was also unsuccessful in its attempts to counsel the plaintiff to reconcile with the defendant. In the defendant's absence, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 21 March 2001 and had three children. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been disharmonious since July 2013 because:

1. the applicant could no longer fulfil the emotional and material needs of the respondent;
2. the respondent did not perceive the applicant to be a good head of the family;
3. the respondent did not value or take heed of the appellant's advice;
4. the respondent felt the applicant was too controlling;
5. the applicant felt denigrated and belittled by the respondent;
6. the respondent's family meddled in the parties' domestic affairs; and
7. the respondent had already left the parties' home without saying anything or requesting the applicant's permission.

The parties had lived separately since August 2013 and had not been physically intimate with each other since September 2013. Before the court, however, the applicant requested that his application for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) be withdrawn. The court, pursuant to art 54 of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, acceded to the applicant's request.

The parties were married on 25 September 2005 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly since October 2010. This was a result of, among other things:

1. the parties not being able to agree on how to manage their finances;
2. the plaintiff no longer being able to be physically intimate with the defendant due to her own mental health issues;
3. the parties holding different views on how to educate their children; and
4. the parties no longer communicating.

The plaintiff claimed that she had already tried to work with her family and the defendant to save the marriage, but to no avail. Judicial mediation was similarly unsuccessful. The plaintiff, however, then made a verbal request before the court that her application be withdrawn. Pursuant to art 54 of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, noting that the defendant had no objections.

The parties were married on 6 September 1986 and had three children. The applicant submitted that, from October 2003, he and the respondent had quarrelled often. This was a result of:

1. a difference of opinion regarding domestic affairs;
2. a tendency to argue over the same matters repeatedly;
3. the parties no longer caring about each other, while the applicant busied himself with work-related matters to avoid further arguments with the respondent; and
4. there having been no physical intimacy between the parties for four years.

Problems escalated on 25 June 2012 when an argument between the parties resulted in the applicant leaving the matrimonial home. After judicial mediation proved unsuccessful, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 18 February 2002 and had two children. The applicant submitted, however, that, since 2003, he and the respondent had quarrelled regularly. This was a result of:

1. incompatibility and a difference of opinion as to domestic affairs;
2. the respondent not obeying the applicant; and
3. the respondent often sharing embarrassing family stories with other people.

Problems escalated in October 2013 resulting in the parties separating, the applicant moving to his parents' home. Since then the parties had not been physically intimate.

The respondent dismissed many of the applicant's claims, qualifying that while she and the applicant had quarrelled, their problems were still reconcilable. Moreover, that she had been an obedient and respectful wife and had not shared embarrassing family stories with other people. The respondent claimed that the applicant had confessed his own infidelity to her, and that this was the primary cause of the rift in their marriage.

Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the applicant a revorcable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance, as well as IDR 1.5 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), IDR 2 million for mut'ah (divorce compensation), and IDR 2 million in back payments.

The parties were married on 2 December 1994 and had four children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since 2012, she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly. This was a result of the defendant:

1. having been married to another woman for two years, unbeknownst to the plaintiff;
2. often being dishonest and behaving unjustly towards the plaintiff;
3. not providing the plaintiff and their child with sufficient financial support; and
4. having already left the plaintiff and their child for almost three months without providing them with any financial support.

Problems escalated on 8 August 2013, resulting in the plaintiff returning to her parents' home. Since then the parties had not been physically intimate. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The court, however, dismissed the plaintiff's request. Citing Chapter 4, verse 135 of the Quran (Al-Nisa’), as well as several Supreme Court Jurisprudence statements and decisions, the court found that providing it with her own address as the address for the defendant, despite the defendant having not resided at that address for several months, rendered her application null and void. The plaintiff's conduct meant that witness information intended for the defendant was sent to the plaintiff's address and never provided to the defendant, and that the summons process had, therefore, pursuant to art 27 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, been compromised.