SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 10 February 2008. They lived together and had two children (aged 6 and 2). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By August 2014, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that:

1. the defendant would often not come home from work, providing no reason or explanation;
2. the defendant often pawned the parties’ household items, including her parents' car, providing no reason or explanation;
3. the defendant, since October 2014, had ceased to financially support the plaintiff;
4. the defendant had sold the title to the plaintiff’s parents' property solely for his own benefit; and
5. while the plaintiff had often financially supported the defendant in the hope he would change, he had not.

In January 2015, the plaintiff left the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the aforementioned circumstances had caused the marriage to deteriorate irreparably, and requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in shughra). The plaintiff also requested that the court grant her custody of the parties' child, and order the defendant to pay to her IDR 1,000,000 per month in child support.

While the plaintiff cooperated with the court, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding, despite having been summonsed. The court found that the marriage was irreparable and could no longer fulfil the purposes of art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, 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, in that the parties' differences were indeed irreconcilable. The court, however, did not consider the plaintiff’s claims for custody or child support because she subsequently withdrew that part of her claim. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay all court costs (IDR 316,000).

The parties were married on 14 February 2012. They lived together and had one child (aged 2). Initially, the marriage was harmonious. After six months, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that:

1. the defendant had had multiple extra-marital affairs;
2. when the parties quarrelled, the defendant would stop communicating, making the plaintiff angry;
3. the defendant would promise to change for the better but then break such promises and repeat his poor behaviour; and
4. the defendant would verbally abuse the plaintiff and threaten her with divorce when they would argue.

The parties separated and the plaintiff claimed that the circumstances caused the marriage to deteriorate irreparably, and requested that thecCourt grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in shughra).

The court found that the marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, 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, to enable the court to grant her a divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay all court costs (IDR 466,000).

The parties were married on 19 April 2013. They had lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ house and had one child (aged 7 months). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By November 2013, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant:

1. had not provided adequate financial support; and
2. was over-protective.

Problems escalated in August 2014 culminating in the defendant leaving the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the aforementioned 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 could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged at law, 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 a divorce and ordered her to pay court costs (IDR 396,000).

The parties were married on 23 December 2007, after which they lived with the respondent's parents for approximately three years. The marriage had been harmonious for the first three months and the parties had their first and only child on 4 March 2008. Since September 2009, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The applicant submitted that this was due to the respondent:

1. never valuing the applicant as head of the household;
2. not being grateful for what the parties had, including the applicant's salary, which was not stable;
3. becoming jealous if the applicant were to return home late; and
4. when angry, often uttering obscenities that the applicant deeemed inappropriate.

As a result, the applicant left the matrimonial home on 23 September 2009, and had been living with his parents for the 11 months leading up to the proceeding. During those 11 months, the parties had not communicated, and the applicant claimed that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was no longer feasible. The applicant felt that his claim met the requirements of art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, for grounds for divorce.

In a written response, the respondent submitted that she also no longer wished to remain married to the applicant. Moreover, that she had told the applicant to leave her parents' home, that she had been working to support their child, that she did not feel that the applicant valued her as his wife, and that the applicant's temperament meant that she did not respect him as the head of their family.

The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds that the marriage was no longer tenable due to ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 3 May 1985, in accordance with Islamic tradition. They had two children, born in 1986 and 1992. The applicant claimed that, after marrying the respondent, work commitments meant that the parties had had to live separately. The respondent lived with her parents in Padang, while the applicant was always out of town in cities including Medan, Riau, and Jakarta.

The parties' marriage was harmonious for the first 15 years, but, by 2000, it had become quarrelsome. This, the applicant claimed, was due to the respondent's lack of gratitude for the spending money with which he had provided her, even though it was not always as much as the respondent had requested. Constant physical distance between the parties had also taken its toll.

Problems escalated at the beginning of 2003, and the frequency with which the parties would argue left the applicant feeling reluctant to return to the matrimonial home. As a result, the parties had lived separately for approximately the past 10 years and five months, and, in 2013, they decided to separate.

The court noted that its advice to the parties that they reconcile had been to no avail. Moreover, the respondent had no objections to the applicant's request for a divorce. Accordingly, 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 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds that ongoing conflict between the parties.

The plaintiff's claim stated that, after the parties were married on 1 October 2010 before a marriage registry official from the local Office of Religious Affairs, work commitments had necessitated their living apart. The plaintiff worked at the Sungai Garinggiang Public Health Centre, and lived at the Health Centre's service house, while the defendant lived with his parents in Padang. Once every three days the plaintiff returned to her parents' home until the parties separated. The parties had one child.

The plaintiff submitted that, since the beginning of the marriage, she and the defendant had quarrelled continuously. This was because:

1. the defendant did not dedicate enough time to the plaintiff; and
2. the plaintiff had heard from family friends that the defendant had had an extra-marital affair, and, while the defendant had denied the allegation, the plaintiff's own investigation revealed that the defendant had indeed had an affair with his previous girlfriend.

Problems escalated in mid-October 2012, as the defendant was still in contact with his previous girlfriend. While the defendant denied these allegations again, the ensuing argument caused him to leave the plaintiff's parents' home. The parties had remained separated since then, and the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support. In August 2013, the plaintiff was informed by friends of the defendant that the defendant had married his previous girlfriend.

The court noted that its advice to the parties that they reconcile had been to no avail. Moreover, the defendant had no objections to the plaintiff's request for a divorce. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to 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 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 14 August 2013 before a marriage registry official from the local Office of Religious Affairs. The plaintiff submitted that, from the beginning of their marriage, she and the defendant had quarrelled often. The plaintiff claimed this was due to the defendant's temperamental and unstable nature, his gambling addiction, and his use of profane language, which he would direct at the plaintiff.

Problems escalated on 5 October 2013 when, three days into living together in their rental property, the parties had a major altercation. The defendant telephoned the plaintiff's brother-in-law, but, as he was unable to attend the property, the plaintiff's older sister arrived and suggested that the parties calm down and that the plaintiff return to the plaintiff's parents' home. That evening the defendant texted the plaintiff's brother-in-law saying that he was leaving the rental property, that he had sold the parties' household items, and that he was taking the parties' vehicle. The plaintiff had since attempted to contact the defendant but his mobile phone had been inactive. The plaintiff also did not know the defendant's whereabouts, and, since his departure, the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support. Accordingly, pursuant to the parties' marriage vows, the plaintiff was prepared to pay the agreed sum of money ('iwadh) to divorce the defendant.

The court, pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, found that because the defendant had contravened figures 1, 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage contract, the evidentiary burden for divorce contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage had been met. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce based on the plaintiff paying to the defendant IDR 10,000 (talak satu khul'i).

The plaintiff and defendant were married on 3 September 2007 and had their first and only child on 7 August 2008. Around the same time, however, the parties had begun to quarrel because the plaintiff's parents did not approve of the plaintiff's relationship with the defendant. Their disapproval was based on the defendant misleading them all by saying he had not been married before, when, in actual fact, he had been married and already had a child from his previous marriage. The plaintiff and her parents knew this because the defendant's child from his previous marriage would often come to the parties' home asking for money.

The defendant had left the matrimonial home and the parties had been separated for approximately five years. The defendant would also visit the child he had with the plaintiff at the plaintiff's parents' home for the first four months of the child's life, after which he stopped visiting. The plaintiff did not know of the defendant's whereabouts, and the defendant had failed to provide financially for the plaintiff since their separation. Pursuant to the parties' marriage agreement, the plaintiff was prepared to pay the agreed sum of money ('iwadh) to divorce the defendant.

The court, pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, found that because the defendant had contravened figures 1, 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage contract by leaving for three consecutive years, not providing the plaintiff with any financial support for three months (the defendant had failed to do so for two years), and not caring for the plaintiff for more than six months, the evidentiary burden for divorce contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage had been met. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce based on the plaintiff paying to the defendant IDR 10,000 (talak satu khul'i).

The parties were married on 4 May 2009. The plaintiff submitted that since the parties married, she had been invited to live at the defendant's parents' home in Jakarta. While pregnant she was verbally abused and threatened with divorce by the defendant, and, then in December 2009, while heavily pregnant, returned to her parents' home to give birth. After the birth of the child, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to return to the defendant's parents' home with their child and the plaintiff's parents. In August 2012, due to economic concerns, the parties returned to Padang to live with the plaintiff's parents, while the defendant searched for employment (albeit unsuccessfully). In October 2012, following a minor problem, the defendant left the plaintiff and their child and, since then, had not returned to see the plaintiff and their child or to provide financial support for the child.

The court, pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, found that because the defendant had contravened figures 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage contract by not providing the plaintiff with any financial support for three months, and not caring for the plaintiff for more than six months (it had already been nine months), the evidentiary burden for divorce contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage had been met. The court granted the plaintiff a divorce and custody of the parties' child based on the plaintiff paying to the defendant IDR 10,000 (talak satu khul'i).

The parties were married on 22 June 2012, but, for the duration of their short marriage, had never lived together as husband and wife. Work commitments meant that the defendant lived on a plantation in Riau, while the plaintiff lived at her parents' home in Padang. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been disharmonious from the outset, the defendant showing a general lack of concern for the plaintiff as a husband should for his wife. For instance, three days after their marriage, the defendant left for Riau without taking the plaintiff because he supposedly did not yet have a house there. When the defendant returned to the plaintiff's parents' home for Eid al'Fitr (Idul Fitri) in 2012, he refused to be physically intimate with the plaintiff, and, at the end of January 2013, when the plaintiff visited the defendant, they were only physically intimate twice in one month.

After refusing to be physically intimate with the plaintiff again, the plaintiff returned home to Padang in April 2013, and since May 2013, the defendant had provided the plaintiff with no financial support. Despite the efforts of the plaintiff's parents to intervene and resolve the parties' problems, on 7 August 2013, the defendant effectively handed the plaintiff over to her parents without any legitimate reason. Since then communication between the parties had been severed and they had remained separated for approximately 10 months, leading up to the proceeding.

The court found that the parties' differences were irreconcilable, and, pursuant to 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, believed ongoing conflict between the parties constituted sufficient grounds to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The parties were married on 6 June 2003, in accordance with Islamic tradition. The plaintiff told the court that, shortly after the parties were married, they quarrelled regularly. This was a result of the defendant's:

1. lack of transparency with the plaintiff in terms of how much money he was earning;
2. lack of care for the plaintiff, including not attending the hospital after she had given birth to their child;
3. lack of care for their children;
4. family meddling in the parties' domestic affairs;
5. having had an extra-marital affair, which the plaintiff confirmed when she saw the defendant giving a lift to another woman on his motorcycle; and
6. having had yet another extra-marital affair, with another woman, which the plaintiff confirmed when the defendant brought the woman to her parents' home.

The plaintiff also submitted that when the parties would quarrel, the defendant would often direct profanities at the plaintiff, and that the defendant had physically assaulted the plaintiff, including punching the plaintiff, causing her cheek to bleed and bruise badly. The defendant had also allegedly pointed a knife at the plaintiff and threatened to kill her if she were to request a divorce.

After the judges counselled the plaintiff with regards to the consequences of divorce and the benefits of remaining married, under Islamic law, the plaintiff chose to withdraw her application for divorce.

The parties were married on 7 March 1997 before a marriage registry official at the local Office of Religious Affairs. The plaintiff submitted that, at the end of 2011, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel often. This was a result of the defendant's gambling addiction, as well as his lack of financial transparency with the plaintiff. On one occasion this lack of transparency had resulted in a pivotal disagreement that left the plaintiff feeling uncomfortable in her relationship with the defendant. While family intervention had previously made the parties reconcile, this disagreement compromised any genuine reconciliation. Problems escalated further in September 2013, when the defendant failed to maintain his end of an agreement with the plaintiff to purchase a vehicle.

The plaintiff, having lost patience with the defendant, left Batam (where the parties were living) and returned home to Padang to her parents' home. Since then the defendant had not asked the plaintiff how she and their children were. On 30 January 2014, the defendant sent to the plaintiff a piece of paper, the contents of which stated that he divorced the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff decided their differences were irreconcilable and sought to divorce the defendant.

The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) on the grounds that ongoing conflict between the parties was a legitimate reason for divorce.

The parties were married on 21 July 1994 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2008, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly. The defendant's lack of desire to work, as well as his being suspicious of the plaintiff, who had no choice but to work to make ends meet, were all points of contention for the plaintiff.

Problems escalated on 4 September 2014, when the defendant, who was still yet to alter his attitude or behaviour, asked the plaintiff for money to purchase cigarettes. This caused the plaintiff to ask the defendant to leave. The parties had remained separated since.

The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) on the grounds that ongoing conflict between the parties was a legitimate reason for divorce.

The parties were married on 24 January 1999, but by the end of 2007 had begun to quarrel often. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant had had several extra-marital affairs (three to her knowledge), as well as the fact that the defendant was far too controlling of the plaintiff, including confiscating the plaintiff's mobile phone. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant had physically assaulted her, leaving her bruised and swollen.

Problems escalated on 30 May 2013, when the plaintiff requested the defendant's permission to return home to Padang (the parties lived in Banten). The defendant granted her permission, but on the way to the airport, the parties began to quarrel and the plaintiff departed for Padang on bad terms with the defendant. After one week of being in Padang, the defendant also returned home to Padang to bring the plaintiff back to Banten with him. The plaintiff, however, refused, noting how poorly the defendant had treated her. Since then the parties had remained separated and, accordingly, the plaintiff sought a divorce from the defendant. The defendant failed to attend court despite having been summonsed formally.

The court, 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 shugra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

Prior to marrying the plaintiff, the defendant had been married to another woman with whom he had a child. He agreed with the plaintiff that he would maintain a relationship with his child, but not with his former wife. The plaintiff submitted, however, that the defendant had breached this agreement by maintaining contact with his former wife. The defendant, the plaintiff submitted, for instance, covered the costs of the rental property his former wife lived in.

The parties had been separated since January 2014, after the defendant left the plaintiff because of ongoing quarrelling regarding his breaking their pre-marriage agreement. Prior to their separation, the plaintiff submitted that the defendant's use of profanities when the parties would argue left her feeling threatened.

While the plaintiff sought a divorce in her statement of claim, the court's counsel persuaded her to withdraw her claim.

The parties were married on 5 July 2012, and had their only child on 14 March 2014. The plaintiff submitted, however, that towards the end of 2013, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly. This was a result of the defendant providing the plaintiff with insufficient spending money to cover household items, the defendant's apathy towards finding work, and the defendant's spending time with his friends and coming home in the middle of the night without any legitimate excuse.

Problems escalated in mid-January 2014 when the defendant texted the plaintiff from Pekanbaru telling her he was going to Dhamasraya to meet someone. When the plaintiff inquired as to why the defendant did not want to return home, he said he was searching for employment there and that, once their child had grown up, he would come and find them. Upon hearing this, the plaintiff decided to seek a divorce from the defendant. For the next year the parties remained separated and not once did the defendant provide the plaintiff with any financial support. The plaintiff felt that reuniting with the defendant would only lead to further quarrelling.

The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) on the grounds that ongoing conflict between the parties was a legitimate reason for divorce.

The parties were married on 24 October 2007, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents for approximately four months, before moving to a rental property in Padang for approximately one year. They then moved to the defendant's parents' home before separating.

By 2009, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was largely due to the defendant's temperamental nature, whereby he would project his anger about something else onto the plaintiff, as well as the defendant having had an extra-marital affair. The plaintiff also submitted that whenever the parties argued, the defendant would resort to physical violence, leaving the plaintiff with physical injuries. The defendant would even threaten the plaintiff with sharp objects. The plaintiff's statement of claim also referenced the defendant's alcohol and drug addiction, for which she had unsuccessfully counselled him.

Problems escalated in January 2012 when the plaintiff was arrested after police found narcotics in the matrimonial home. At that point the defendant had already left the plaintiff, but because the plaintiff had not reported the defendant to the police earlier, she was imprisoned for one year. During this time the defendant very rarely went to visit the plaintiff. Upon her release from prison the plaintiff heard that the defendant had remarried but was also serving five years in prison himself for drug-related offences.

The court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) on the grounds that ongoing conflict between the parties meant that there was no hope for them to create a joyful and enduring domestic life, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1947 on Marriage.

After marrying in 2003, the parties had quarrelled regularly since the beginning of 2010. The applicant, a retiree and ten years the respondent's senior, claimed that this was a result of the respondent's lack of care for the applicant once the applicant had retired from work. The applicant also cited as a point of contention the respondent's request for his car and motorcycle, despite the applicant having told the respondent to sell a parcel of land they owned valued at IDR 220 million. The applicant often left the matrimonial home to gather his thoughts and, on one occasion, returned on the condition the respondent's behaviour would change. It did not, however. When the parties would quarrel, the respondent often directed profanities at the applicant, even telling the applicant to divorce her.

Problems escalated on 4 February 2015, when the respondent asked the applicant for his car and motorcycle yet again. The applicant, consequently, moved to his parents' home. The parties did not communicate for the year leading up to the proceeding.

While the applicant had initially lodged an application for divorce, he informed the court that he and the respondent had since reconciled. Accordingly, the court permitted the applicant to withdraw his application.

The parties were married on 15 July 1999 and had their first and only child on 30 August 2000. At the beginning of February 2000, however, before the birth of the child, the defendant sought the plaintiff's approval to go to his parents' home. He would never return to the matrimonial home and the parties would remain separated for the next 14 years and two months. During that extended time the defendant never provided the plaintiff with any financial support, nor did the plaintiff leave behind anything of value that could be sold to provide for the plaintiff and their child. Moreover, the plaintiff's attempts to locate the defendant were unsuccessful. She sought to pay a fee in order that she could divorce (talak satu khul'i) the defendant for breach of their marriage vows (taklik talak) as she found the situation no longer tenable.

The court acknowledged that the defendant's absence had rendered mediation futile. It also noted that the defendant's conduct specifically repudiated their marriage as he had failed to provide the plaintiff with financial support and failed to care for the plaintiff for more than six months (conduct envisaged by figures 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage contract). Accordingly, by virtue of art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the plaintiff was permitted to divorce the plaintiff for breach of their marriage vows by paying a fee ('iwadh) of IDR 10,000.

The parties were married on 27 December 2012 and had their first and only child on 31 January 2013. Six months into their marriage, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the cause of the conflict was the defendant's lack of responsibility as a husband in terms of providing enough financially to meet the parties' daily needs. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant was unmotivated in his employment and that she had to assist to make ends meet. Furthermore, the defendant did not assist the plaintiff in looking after their child while the plaintiff was busy or cooking, and when the parties would argue, the defendant would often leave the matrimonial home, sometimes for up to two weeks at a time.

Problems escalated on 20 December 2013 when the defendant failed to provide enough to meet the parties' domestic needs, and the plaintiff was hesitant to seek assistance from her parents. When the plaintiff sought to discuss this with the defendant, the parties argued and the defendant then left the matrimonial home, unbeknownst to the plaintiff. The defendant never returned, nor did he contact the plaintiff or provide her with financial assistance to help rear their child.

The plaintiff sought to pay the necessary fee ('iwadh) for the court to grant her a divorce from the defendant (talak satu khul'i). The court noted that the defendant's failure to attend court had rendered mediation futile. It also noted that the defendant's conduct specifically repudiated their marriage as he had failed to provide the plaintiff with financial support, and failed to care for the plaintiff for more than six months (conduct envisaged by figures 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage contract). Accordingly, by virtue of art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the plaintiff was permitted to divorce the plaintiff for breach of their marriage vows by paying a fee ('iwadh) of IDR 10,000.