SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 30 July 2006 and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. The applicant submitted, however, that, since January 2014, it had become quarrelsome because:

1. the parties no longer agreed on domestic affairs;
2. the respondent often rebelled against the advice of the applicant;
3. the respondent often referred to the applicant's past;
4. there had been a communication breakdown between the parties;
5. the respondent had not been a good wife to the applicant; and
6. the respondent was temperamental and did not want to listen to the applicant's opinions.

These problems escalated in June 2014, causing the parties to separate. After unsuccessfully counselling the applicant to reunite with the respondent, and the respondent failing to attend the proceeding, the court, 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, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 11 April 1999 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since August 2007, she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly. This was a result of:

1. the presence of a third party known by the defendant in the matrimonial home; and
2. the defendant no longer providing the plaintiff with financial and emotional support, having not returned home since the birth of their third child in August 2007.

The plaintiff had already attempted to resolve her differences with the defendant with the help of both parties' families, but to no avail. Accordingly, 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 plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 3 March 2013 and had no children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that she and the defendant had only been married for one year before they had begun to quarrel regularly. Their quarrelling, she submitted, had resulted from:

1. the plaintiff always having to ask the defendant for financial support;
2. the plaintiff always having to ask the defendant to be physically intimate with her, given her responsibility to her mother and younger siblings to have a child;
3. the defendant not acknowledging the plaintiff's responsibilities to her own family, of which she was the backbone;
4. the defendant not caring about the plaintiff's daily living expenses, including rent payments, which the plaintiff would cover herself; and
5. the defendant lacking initiative and responsibility towards the plaintiff.

The court, 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, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 11 January 1982 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since 1986, she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly. This was primarily due to:

1. a breakdown in communication;
2. the defendant not providing for the plaintiff since 2012; and
3. the defendant often directing profanities at the plaintiff.

Problems escalated in February 2014, resulting in the parties separating. As mediation had failed and the defendant had conceded the plaintiff's submissions were all true, 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 plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 25 September 2005 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, at the beginning of 2006, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff claimed the primary causes therein were:

1. the defendant's alcohol consumption and gambling addiction;
2. the defendant's violent treatment of the plaintiff and their three children;
3. the defendant's self-confessed infidelity; and
4. the defendant not having provided the plaintiff or their children with financial or emotional support since July 2014.

Both parties' families had endeavoured to make the parties reconcile their differences, but to no avail. Indeed, despite being summonsed, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding. Accordingly, the court, 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, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court did not, however, specifically accede to the plaintiff's demand that the defendant pay child maintenance.

The parties were married on 24 February 2002 and had two children. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. The applicant submitted that, in around 2013, however, the respondent had started to show a lack of respect for applicant as the head of the household. Moreover, that the respondent would often leave the house without first seeking the applicant's permission, and that the respondent would secretively receive telephone calls from other people. The disharmony between the applicant and respondent peaked on 20 March 2013 when the applicant caught the respondent secretively on the telephone. When the applicant inquired as to with whom she was talking, the respondent immediately became angry and commenced hitting the applicant. Following this incident, the applicant returned to his parents' home. The applicant and respondent had lived separately for two months without any communication and attempts to reconcile had been in vain.

Despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to 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 20 December 1992. They had three children, all of whom were now in the care of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that, in around 2006, the parties' marriage had become disharmonious. This was primarily a result of the defendant's infidelity, notably, in 2008, when the defendant stated he wanted to divorce the plaintiff and marry another woman. In September 2013, the defendant confessed to having had an extra-marital affair, resulting in the applicant and respondent separating for one month. At the time of the proceeding, however, the plaintiff stated that she and the defendant had reconciled their differences and that she wished to withdraw her application. The court accepted the plaintiff's request.

The parties were married on 28 June 2006 by the local imam, the plaintiff's father acting as the parties' marriage guardian (wali nikah). The parties had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since July 2006, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had become excessively jealous of her relationship with her family, was often angry with the plaintiff for no apparent reason, and no longer carried out his responsibilities as a husband. Consequently, the parties had been separated for approximately seven years. The plaintiff maintained that her differences with the defendant were irreconcilable and, accordingly, a divorce was the only viable solution.

In the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra). Acknowledging that marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, that being a happy family and domestic life, was no longer feasible, it granted the divorce on the grounds that the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years, and ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 30 May 2011. The applicant submitted that, in around 2012, the parties' home life had become disharmonious. This was primarily the result of the respondent often being angry with the applicant, and if the respondent was angry, she would often leave the home without saying where she was going. Problems escalated in May 2013 when the respondent left the home without saying, taking with her her clothes and some money. After being separated for six months, the applicant concluded that the only solution was to divorce the respondent.

Despite the respondent's absence in court, the court acceded to the applicant's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). Acknowledging that marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, that being a happy family and domestic life, was no longer feasible, it granted the divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The applicant sought dispensation to enable her 15 year old daughter (DOB: 9 July 1999) to marry her boyfriend. The applicant claimed that all relevant requirements to conduct an Islamic marriage had been met, other than that her daughter was four months shy of being 16 years of age (the required age at law). The applicant emphasised the urgency of the matter given that her daughter and her boyfriend had already displayed signs that they intended to become physically intimate, something prohibited under Islam if out of wedlock. While the Office of Religious Affairs had dismissed her application to register their proposed marriage, the applicant submitted that there were no legitimate reasons that they should not be married.

The court acceded to the application, stating that the two had already agreed they wished to marry one another, that they loved each other, that their engagement had been assented to by both their parents, that the Office of Religious Affairs had dismissed their application to register their marriage, and that they would conduct themselves contrary to the law if they were permitted to marry. Accordingly, the court granted dispensation to marry, pursuant to art 7(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 15(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The court granted dispensation for the child applicant to marry, while ordering marriage registration officials to initiate, register and supervise the marriage.

The applicant was the father of a child (18 years and eight months; DOB: 18 May 1996) who wanted to marry his fiancee. The applicant's child and the child's fiancee had already received the blessing of both his and her families to marry. The applicant had made all the necessary administrative arrangements with the relevant village office (Kantor Desa) and Office of Religious Affairs, but his application had been dismissed on the grounds that his child was under the legislated age of 19. Accordingly, the applicant sought dispensation from the court so that his child's marriage could be expedited.

The court granted the necessary dispensation, pursuant to art 7(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 15(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, convinced that the relationship was legitimate and that if they were not permitted to marry, they would most likely conduct themselves in an illegal manner (become physically intimate).

The parties were married on 4 September 2000 and had three children. They had lived together with one of the defendant's uncles in Samarinda for approximately three years, before moving to live with another of the defendant's uncles in West Java for four years. From there they loved to Simoro village, where they had lived up until the time of the proceeding. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious, however, by February 2006, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant:

1. had debts of which the plaintiff was unaware;
2. would drink excessively and sometimes even slap the plaintiff;
3. had been having an extra-marital affair since the birth of the parties' third child; and
4. had failed to provide for the plaintiff since the birth of the parties' third child.

When problems escalated the defendant left the matrimonial home. 

The court found that a sufficient reason to grant an irrevocable divorce, as required by art 119(2)(c) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, that being ongoing conflict, existed. Therefore, it acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to 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 6 February 2012, after which time they had lived together with the plaintiff's parents. The parties had no children. The plaintiff submitted that by February 2013 the marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. would not provide for the plaintiff due to his own jealousy;
2. could not be physically intimate with the plaintiff due to his own sexual impotence; and
3. had failed to provide for the plaintiff for one year and nine months.

When problems escalated in February 2013 the defendant left the matrimonial home.

The court found that a sufficient reason to grant an irrevocable divorce, as required by art 119(2)(c) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, that being ongoing conflict, existed. Therefore, it acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to 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 August 1998 and had remained happily married for 16 years. Since July 2012, however, they had begun to quarrel regularly because, the applicant submitted, the parties had been unable to conceive a child. As a result, the parties had separated in June 2014. The applicant submitted that a divorce was the only feasible option.

The court acceded to the applicant's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), pursuant to art 37 of the elucidation 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, on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 31 July 2009 and had one child. Due to adverse economic conditions in Indonesia, the plaintiff had relocated to Hong Kong in 2011 for work. In 2013, the plaintiff returned to Indonesia for three weeks, where she discovered the defendant had frivolously spent the money the plaintiff had sent home. This caused the plaintiff and defendant to fight and argue, having already lived apart for approximately two years.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to the elucidation of 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.

The parties were married on 8 February 2010 and had a child who passed away at the age of 3. By the end of 2011 they had begun to quarrel regularly because the respondent intended to move to Malaysia to work, despite the applicant's reluctance to give her his blessing, and that upon the respondent's return to Indonesia in July 2014, she had chosen to stay with her parents rather than return to the applicant. 

The applicant submitted that the parties' differences were irreconcilable and, accordingly, requested a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surah Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to the elucidation of art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted a divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties' marriage was arranged. After only six days, the parties had begun to argue because:

1. they could not adjust to one another; and
2. the defendant had become romantically involved with another woman.

The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, surat Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to the elucidation of art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted a divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict. Accordingly, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro).

The parties were married on 23 December 2006. For the first 10 months of the marriage they had lived with the defendant's parents, before moving to the plaintiff's parents' home. They also had one child, who was seven years of age at the time of the proceeding.

After moving in with the plaintiff's parents, however, the marriage had begun to deteriorate. This was a result of:

1. economic difficulties, leading to frequent quarrelling; and
2. the defendant discovering from the plaintiff's mobile phone that she had had an extra-marital affair.

Attempts on the part of the parties' families to make them reconcile had proven unsuccessful, and the parties had lived separately for the four months leading up to the proceeding, during which time their had been no physical intimacy between the parties, and the defendant had provided the plaintiff with no financial support. The plaintiff, believing that the marriage was beyond repair, sought a judicial divorce from the court.

The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surat Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to the elucidation of art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The applicant and his wife were married on 18 November 1995, in accordance with Islamic tradition before a local Office of Religious Affairs Marriage Registrar. They would have three children. When the applicant applied for a birth certificate for one of his children, however, he discovered that his name had been incorrectly recorded on his marriage certificate, which precluded his child's birth certificate from being issued. Accordingly, he sought a stipulation from the court to rectify this problem.

The court acceded to the applicant's request to correct his name on his marriage certificate.

The applicant and his wife were married on 4 November 1991, in accordance with Islamic tradition before a local Office of Religious Affairs Marriage Registrar. They would have three children. When the applicant applied for a birth certificate for one of his children, however, he discovered that his name had been incorrectly recorded on his marriage certificate, which precluded his child's birth certificate from being issued. Accordingly, he sought a stipulation from the court to rectify this problem.

The court granted the applicant's request to correct her name on her marriage certificate.