SHARIAsource

This statute regulates the administration and documentation of key events relating to the Indonesian population, including births, deaths, marriage, divorce, court decisions, change of address, and change of name and status.

The parties were married on 6 August 2013. The applicant submitted that after one month living with the respondent's parents, the parties were still yet to consummate their marriage. The applicant submitted that the marriage had been arranged and that the parties did not love one another. Consequently, in September 2013, the applicant had left the respondent, returning to his parents' home. He had remained with his parents for the past two years and four months.

Acknowledging that the parties' marriage was irreparable, for the purposes of art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the applicant's request. It granted him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and arts 116(f) and 118 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that for a man to take another wife he must first obtain the permission of a religious court, per arts 3, 9, 24 and 25 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The parties were married on an undisclosed date and had no children. In June 2015, the defendant left the plaintiff and returned to his parents' home. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's conduct was in violation of figures (2) and (4) of the parties' marriage vows (taklik talak). The plaintiff, therefore, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i).

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the defendant had repudiated the parties' marriage vows. The court also cited Ar-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, regarding the supposed tranquility of marriage.

This appeal against the ruling reported in Malaya Law Journal XVII 12 was made on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to declare void the marriage between Maria Huberdina Hertogh and Inche Mansor Adabi, that Hertogh was a Muslim "in fact and in law," and that her marriage to Inche Mansor Adabi was valid. The Court ruled that the declaration of the illegality of the marriage was beyond the Court's jurisdiction, but that Hertogh was domiciled in Holland. As Inche Mansor Adabi had not proven that the marriage was valid by the laws of Holland, the Court had rightly ordered custody of Hertogh to be returned to her parents.

An excerpt from the book al-Maqsad al-Mahmūd fī Talhīs al-'Uqūd, this section details the legality on issues pertaining to marriage, paternity, and children. 

The Kerala High Court ruled: "The Quranic verse relating to khula found in Chapter 2, verse 229, in unequivocal terms, declares that a Muslim wife has the right to terminate her marriage."

The appellant challenged the ruling of the Meulaboh Shari'a Court, which, among other things, deemed the marriage of the parties to be lawful, and granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shugra).

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court insofar as it granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce, however, it noted that the lower court was not required to first determine the lawfulness of the marriage.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Meureudu Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra).

The Court dismissed the appeal, while reminding the appellant that marriage was a holy agreement (miistaqan ghalidhan), not measurable by the mistakes made by either party. Moreover, that the state of the marriage was irreparable and that divorce was the best course for both parties to take.

This section of al-Jarīda al-Rasmiyya officially promulgates the first two books of the Moroccan Personal Status Code, the Mudawwana. The first book presents the stipulations concerning marriage, including issues such as the contract, dowry, and inhibitors (like number of wives). The second book deals with the dissolution of marriage, thus addressing conditions of repudiation, women’s repudiation, and the ʿidda (the woman’s waiting period until she may remarry).

The parties were married on 1 June 2001. They had lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ home and had one child (aged 11). The plaintiff submitted that, initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By January 2011, however, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had had an extra-marital affair and a clandestine marriage (nikah siri);
2. had not contributed financially to the marriage with the plaintiff;
3. often hit the plaintiff when the parties would argue.

Problems escalated in January 2012 culminating in the plaintiff leaving the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the circumstances had caused the marriage to deteriorate irreparably, and requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bai’in shughra).

The court found that the marriage was irreparable and could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and that the plaintiff’s claim satisfied the requirements of art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba’in Sughra) and ordered her to pay costs (IDR 506,000).

The parties were married on 22 May 2011. They lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ house and had one child (aged 3). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. After two years, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant as a husband had not provided the plaintiff and their child with sufficient financial support, forcing the plaintiff herself to work to provide for the family. Problems escalated when the defendant left the plaintiff without notice. The plaintiff submitted that these circumstances had caused the marriage to deteriorate irreparably, and requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce.

The court found that the marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff had met the evidentiary burden contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, and, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba’in Sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 7 March 2011 and lived with the plaintiff's parents. From August 2011, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of:

1. the defendant never providing the plaintiff with any financial support from the time of their marriage because the defendant believed the plaintiff had her own salary;
2. the parties having only ever been physically intimate once since they were married; and
3. the defendant prioritising his work meaning he rarely ever came home.

In August 2011, problems escalated and the defendant left the plaintiff. In her claim, the plaintiff submitted that the dire state of the parties' marriage meant that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer feasible. The court held that art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, required there to be a legitimate reason for it to grant the plaintiff a divorce. The court found that ongoing conflict between the parties satisfied this requirement, per art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro).

The parties were married on 4 April 1998. Since October 2011, however, they had begun to quarrel regularly. The applicant submitted that this was because, for 13 years of marriage, the parties had not been able to conceive a child. Problems had escalated and, in November 2011, the parties separated.

In his claim, the applicant submitted that the dire state of the parties' marriage meant that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer feasible. As a counterclaim, the respondent sought IDR 4.5 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted) and mut'ah (divorce compensation) in the form of a 23 karat gold necklace weighing 5.8 grams.

The court noted the purpose of marriage as contained in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as verse 21 of surat Ar-Ruum in Al-Qur'an. It then went on to find that ongoing conflict between the parties satisfied the legitimate reason requirement to grant a divorce, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, the court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), but ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent her iddah and mut'ah demands.

The parties were married on 22 February 2010 and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By August 2015, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent constantly expressed a desire to return to her parents' home in Sulawesi. In October 2015, the respondent left the applicant for no apparent reason. She had also ceased all communications with the applicant. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) 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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Moreover, that the parties' marriage could not realise the purpose of marriage as contained in the Qur'an, Surah Ar-Rum, verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 7 April 2008 and had two children. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By March 2009, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. had carried on an extra-marital affair with another woman;
2. did not have permanent employment; and
3. had verbally and physically abused the plaintiff.

After physically abusing the plaintiff in February 2012, the defendant left the parties' home. Familial attempts to make the parties reconcile had also been unsuccessful. The plaintiff, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) 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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Moreover, that the parties' marriage could not realise the purpose of marriage as contained in the Qur'an, Surah Ar-Rum, verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 20 April 2011 and had one child. As early as May 2011, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had frequently:

1. hit, slapped, and kicked the plaintiff;
2. emotionally abused the plaintiff; and
3. threatened the parties' child, making the plaintiff left feeling debilitated and miserable.

After physically abusing the plaintiff in September 2015, the defendant left the parties' home and returned his parents' home. The plaintiff, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) 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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Moreover, that the parties' marriage could not realise the purpose of marriage as contained in the Qur'an, Surah Ar-Rum, verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 10 July 2000 and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By September 2003, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. was not transparent with his finances, only earning enough to support himself;
2. had physically and emotionally abused the plaintiff; and
3. had disrespected the plaintiff's older sister, calling her a crazy widow ('janda gila').

Problems escalated in September 2005 resulting in the plaintiff leaving the defendant and returning to her parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the next 10 years and 10 months. The plaintiff, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) 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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Moreover, that the parties' marriage could not realise the purpose of marriage as contained in the Qur'an, Surah Ar-Rum, verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 4 January 2014 and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By December 2014, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. frequently failed to return home, for no apparent reason;
2. refused to acknowledge the parties' child as his; and
3. failed to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial support.

Problems escalated in June 2015 resulting in the defendant leaving the plaintiff. The parties had remained separated since. The plaintiff, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) 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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Moreover, that the parties' marriage could not realise the purpose of marriage as contained in the Qur'an, Surah Ar-Rum, verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 10 September 2007 but had no children. The plaintiff's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry (mahar) had been IDR 2 million and a prayer instrument. Since the beginning of 2008, however, the marriage had been disharmonious, primarily because the defendant would frequently leave the matrimonial home, even for up to one year at a time. On 3 January 2013, the defendant left for Java in search of employment, never to return. While the plaintiff had waited for three years and six months for the defendant to return, realising that the purpose of marriage, as prescribed in Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, had been frustrated, the plaintiff filed an application for a judicial divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court acknowledged that the information provided by the plaintiff's two witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions, and that the defendant had not returned home for over three years. The purpose of marriage, as prescribed in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, that being to create an everlasting and joyful family, was no longer feasible. Pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two years.