SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 3 March 2012 and had their first and only child on 1 June 2014. The plaintiff submitted, however, that the parties had quarrelled regularly since December 2012 because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant would take medicinal drugs that would often make him angry. On one occasion, for instance, in mid-February 2013, the plaintiff asked the defendant not to bring his friends home with him. In response, the defendant grabbed the plaintiff by the hair and put his hands around her neck.

Unbeknownst to the plaintiff at the time, the defendant had incurred a IDR 2 million debt with the owner of a travel service after failing to pay the owner at the time the service was rendered. Problems escalated when, on 25 June 2014, the plaintiff's parents inquired with the defendant as to the debt, to which the defendant still would not admit. When the plaintiff's parents asked the parties to resolve the matter on their own time, the defendant had concluded that the plaintiff's parents were telling him to leave their home. The defendant then left the parties' home, and the parties had remained separated for approximately seven months.

At the end of September 2014 the defendant spent the night with another woman, which the plaintiff learned about from the woman in question. Then, on 20 December 2014, the defendant picked up the plaintiff, unbeknownst to her parents, and brought her to his parents' home in Pesisir Selatan, West Sumatra. When the plaintiff's parents came to pick her up, the defendant threatened them with a knife. Believing her marriage to the defendant was no longer tenable, the plaintiff sought a divorce.

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, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) as envisaged by art 119(2)c of the Compilation of Islamic Laws on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 1 March 2008, and had two children on 15 December 2008 and 12 December 2012. The first four years of their marriage were harmonious. At the beginning of 2013, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant:

1. had had an extra-marital affair with a work colleague, which she had surmised from the defendant's behaviour: notably, calling the woman in question late at night; and
2. had showed a lack of care for the plaintiff, often coming home late at night, despite having only worked until 5.00pm.

Each time the parties would argue about the defendant's duplicity, the defendant would promise to leave the woman in question, only to contact her again after a short while.

From January 2014, the defendant would seldom come home to the parties' matrimonial home, instead spending more time at his parents' home. Problems escalated at the end of November 2014 when the plaintiff learned from a friend of the defendant that he had married the woman with whom he was having the affair. The parties remained in the same house briefly, but separated properly not long after. Convinced the marriage was no longer tenable, the plaintiff requested the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

While the defendant failed to attend both court sessions, upon the counsel of the court, the plaintiff chose to withdraw her application for divorce in an attempt to reconcile with the defendant.

The parties were married on 29 December 2004, and had two children on 23 September 2004 and 6 November 2010. Their marriage had been harmonious until 2012, when the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The applicant submitted that this was because the respondent:

1. did not carry out her responsibilities as a wife, such as preparing food for the applicant;
2. incorrectly suspected the applicant of having had an extra-marital affair, and would never listen to the applicant's explanations;
3. was excessively jealous of the applicant's family and objected to things such as the applicant providing his parents with money; and
4. whenever the parties would argue, would direct obscenities at the applicant, even in public.

Problems escalated in July 2013 when the respondent, for no apparent reason, ignored the applicant. The argument that ensued caused the respondent to ask the applicant for a divorce, which led the applicant to move to a rental property and the respondent to return to her parents' home. As mediation had failed to make the parties reconcile their differences, the applicant was of the opinion that the marriage was no longer tenable.

The court concurred, citing art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, in finding that the parties' ongoing conflict constituted a sufficient reason to grant the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), as prescribed in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The court, pursuant to art 152 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 5 million, IDR 4.5 million of which was for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted). The court deemed the remaining IDR 500,000 sufficient for mut'ah (divorce compensation), as contained in art 149(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The applicant was also ordered to pay to the respondent IDR 750,000 per month in child maintenance.

The parties were married on 25 February 2005 and had two children. By 2011 they had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of:

1. the defendant having had an extra-marital affair with another woman, and then marrying that woman in 2013, unbeknownst to the plaintiff;
2. the defendant arbitrarily and regularly physically assaulting the plaintiff when they would argue;
3. the defendant having physically assaulted the parties' children;
4. communication between the parties having broken down;
5. the defendant no longer appreciating his parents-in-law; and
6. the plaintiff no longer feeling valued by the defendant as his wife.

The plaintiff sought a divorce on the grounds that the parties' differences were irreconcilable. In her claim for custody of the parties' two children, aged six and one, the plaintiff cited Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 105 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, which both require children under the age of 12 to remain in the custody of the mother. The plaintiff also cited art 41 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 105 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, in support of her claim that the defendant was required to provide the plaintiff with IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance payments.

The court found that, due to ongoing conflict between the parties, 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, being a happy and peaceful home life, was no longer feasible. Therefore, there were sufficient reasons to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), 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.

The parties were married on 22 May 2012 and had one child, born on 29 August 2012. By September 2012, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant's parents would meddle in their domestic affairs, the defendant had converted to Christianity, and the defendant was an irresponsible parent in all regards. On 22 May 2013, the defendant had left the matrimonial home for no apparent reason, and, since then, had failed to provide the plaintiff with any information as to his whereabouts. The plaintiff's inquiries with the defendant's family and friends were to no avail as they knew nothing. The plaintiff submitted to the court that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer attainable.

The court found that information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's claim. It noted it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce in the event mediation was unsuccessful. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, 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 ba'in shughro).

The parties were married on 4 November 2012 and had their first and only child on 5 April 2014. Since February 2013, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff alleged that this was primarily the result of the defendant misleading the plaintiff's parents as to his financial state. On 27 December 2013, the defendant had left the matrimonial home for no apparent reason, and, since then, had failed to provide the plaintiff with any information as to his whereabouts, or any financial support for their child. The plaintiff's inquiries with the defendant's family and friends were to no avail as they knew nothing themselves. The plaintiff submitted that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer attainable.

The court found that the information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions. It noted that it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, therefore, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the parties an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughro).

The parties were married on 25 August 2012. By the end of September 2012, however, the marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was a result of the defendant having had an extra-marital affair with another woman in November 2012, and the defendant subsequently leaving the plaintiff without any apparent reason or without providing her with any financial support. The plaintiff submitted that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer attainable.

The court found that the information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions. It noted that it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce in the event mediation was unsuccessful. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, therefore, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the parties an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughro).

The parties were married on 10 July 2011. By March 2012, however, they had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was a result of:

1. the defendant having had an extra-marital affair, which the plaintiff had discovered through the defendant's mobile phone;
2. the defendant prioritising himself, rather than providing the plaintiff with enough attention, affection and physical intimacy;
3. the defendant's alcohol dependency; and
4. the defendant's bi-sexual tendencies.

In July 2013, the defendant had left the matrimonial home for no apparent reason, and, since then, had failed to provide the plaintiff with any information as to his whereabouts. The plaintiff's inquiries with the defendant's family and friends were to no avail as they knew nothing. The plaintiff alleged that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer attainable.

The court found that the information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions. It noted that it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce in the event mediation was unsuccessful. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, therefore, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the parties an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughro).

The parties were married on 17 July 2011 and had their first and only child on 31 January 2012. Since the beginning of their marriage, however, the parties had quarrelled regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of:

1. the defendant's continued dependency on his parents which meant the parties had had to live with his parents, rather than alone;
2. all financial support coming from the defendant's parents, because the defendant worked for his parents;
3. the defendant not showing the plaintiff enough attention or being a good husband while she was pregnant with their child, or while she was rearing their child;
4. poor communication between the parties; and
5. the plaintiff experiencing undue stress while living with the defendant's parents.

On 1 January 2015, the plaintiff left the matrimonial home. In her claim, she submitted that the state of the parties' marriage meant that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer attainable.

The court found that the information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions. It noted that it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce in the event mediation was unsuccessful. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, therefore, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the parties an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughro).

The parties were married on 11 February 2007 and had their one and only child on 15 July 2008. By October 2011, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of:

1. the defendant having had an extra-marital affair;
2. the defendant's excessive jealousy and accusations towards the plaintiff that she had had an extra-marital affair herself;
3. the defendant's use of profane language which he would direct at the plaintiff; and
4. the defendant not providing enough financial support to meet daily domestic needs.

Problems escalated in mid-2012, causing the parties to separate. In her claim, the plaintiff submitted that the 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 found that the information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions. It noted that it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce in the event mediation was unsuccessful. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, therefore, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the parties an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughro).

The parties were married on 20 February 2001 and had three children. Since the beginning of 2001, however, they had quarrelled regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of the defendant:

1. not being financially transparent;
2. often directing obscenities at the plaintiff, including threatening her, insulting her, and physically assaulting her; and
3. having already married another woman without the plaintiff's permission.

In her claim, the plaintiff submitted that the 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 found that the information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions. It noted that it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce in the event mediation was unsuccessful. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, therefore, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the parties an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughro).

The parties were married on 25 April 1997 and had four children (aged 16, 12, 7 and 4). The parties' marriage had been harmonious for approximately three years before becoming quarrelsome by the beginning of 2002. The applicant submitted that the respondent:

1. was not transparent with her finances;
2. would ignore the applicant’s advice and did not care about the troublesome situation at home; and
3. provided her own family with financial assistance (by selling the gold jewellery the applicant had purchased for her, unbeknownst to the applicant), but did not contribute to her own immediate family.

In 2014, these problems escalated and the parties separated (although the court stated that the parties separated on 8 November 2012).

On 13 November 2014, the applicant filed for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) in the Kuala Simpang Shari'a Court. In response to the applicant’s submissions, the respondent submitted that the applicant had already married another woman without the respondent’s permission, which the applicant conceded. The applicant also agreed to pay to the respondent IDR 1 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted) and mut’ah (divorce compensation), in the form of a prayer instrument.

The court acceded to the applicant's request, finding that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court, pursuant to 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, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, while also ordering the applicant pay to the respondent IDR 1 million for iddah, the aforementioned prayer instrument for mut'ah, as well as court costs (IDR 191,000).

The parties were married on 7 March 2011 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had deteriorated due to economic hardship, that being that the defendant had made no effort to obtain employment, was often intoxicated, and therefore unable to contribute financially to meet the parties' domestic needs. In 2013, the parties separated.

On 11 November 2014, the plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sugro) 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.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff’s request, granting an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughro), and ordering the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 401,000).

The parties were married on 16 September 2012 and had two children (aged 14 and 10). The plaintiff submitted that, during the marriage, the defendant:

1. had had an extra-marital affair with a woman named Ami;
2. had married a woman named Diana without the plaintiff’s permission; and
3. often left the house without telling the plaintiff.

The parties divorced in April 2011 and married again on 26 September 2012. Problems escalated and, on 13 September 2013, the plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra).

The court acceded to the plaintiff's request, finding that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to 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, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 491,000).

The parties were married in 1994 and had three children (born 10 September 1995, 27 November 1998 and 17 April 2001). The parties’ marriage was never formally registered. In 2007, the parties separated and the applicant married another woman, whom the applicant divorced in 2011. On 18 October 2011, the parties married again, this time formally registering the marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs. The marriage deteriorated and, in May 2014, the respondent left the applicant and never returned. The parties stopped communicating and, on 15 December 2014, the applicant filed for a divorce.

The applicant submitted that during the marriage:

1. despite the applicant providing the respondent with his entire monthly salary (IDR 2 million per month), the respondent always requested more money from the applicant;
2. the respondent often left the house without asking the applicant or informing the applicant where she was going;
3. the respondent prioritised herself over the applicant and their children, and failed to carry out her duties as a housewife; and
4. the respondent often communicated with other men via telephone.

The applicant submitted to the court that the marriage was irreconcilable and requested permission to divorce the respondent.

Despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request, finding that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to 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, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the applicant to pay court costs (IDR 791,000).

The parties were married on 10 April 1994 and had four children. The plaintiff submitted that, around 2013, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly because the defendant:

1. did not appreciate the plaintiff as his wife;
2. no longer executed his responsibilities as a husband; and
3. had had an extra-marital affair.

Problems escalated in 2013, resulting in the parties sleeping in separate beds (despite remaining under the same roof). Regardless, the plaintiff believed that the marriage was irreparable, making divorce the only feasible option.

In his oral response to the court, the defendant disputed the three causes of conflict between the parties, but held no objection to the court granting the plaintiff a divorce.

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 her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 7 May 2005 and had two children. From December 2012 the parties' marriage had become disharmonious as a result of regular quarrelling. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of:

1. the defendant's egotistical tendencies, never validating the plaintiff's opinion; and
2. the defendant being physically and psychologically abusive towards the plaintiff.

Problems escalated and, in August 2013, while remaining under the same roof, the parties had begun to sleep in separate beds. Regardless, the plaintiff believed the marriage was irreparable and that divorce was the only feasible option. As a civil servant, the plaintiff had also already obtained permission to divorce from her superior officer (the Mayor of Kendari).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff’s request, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, 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. The court also deferred to expert Islamic legal opinion in Kitab Ia'natul Thalibin Juz III, which dictates that a court is to grant a wife a divorce if she is no longer happy with her husband. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 241,000).

The parties were married on 25 August 2008 (NB: the court's findings state they were married on 21 August 2008) and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that eight months into her first pregnancy the parties had quarrelled and the defendant had grabbed and pushed her to the floor with utter disregard. At the time, the plaintiff reported the defendant to the authorities for acts of domestic violence, however, the defendant fled for Bombana in search of gold and his parents. The plaintiff's parents advised her to reconcile with the defendant and to withdraw her police report, which the plaintiff did for the sake of the parties' marriage.

In 2011, the parties appeared to have reconciled their differences, already having had their first child. The defendant then proceeded to have an extra-marital affair with another woman, while choosing to spend all his income on this other woman and none on the plaintiff. The plaintiff also submitted that during an encounter with the other woman, she had learned that the defendant had been carrying on this extra-marital affair while the plaintiff was pregnant.

The defendant had also been incarcerated for transporting petroleum. Upon his release from prison, the plaintiff began working at Kredit Colombus (a credit company) to make ends meet. When the defendant, however, forbid her from working the parties had begun to quarrel again. The plaintiff submitted that their disputes were also the result of the defendant:

1. demanding that the plaintiff return to him the spending money with which he had provided her, if he himself had run out of money;
2. forbidding, and becoming angry with, the plaintiff from working to pay for domestic household needs;
3. damaging the plaintiff's belongings and that of the household when he became angry;
4. physically assaulting the plaintiff when he became jealous for no established reason;
5. often threatening the plaintiff, causing her great fear and trauma;
6. regularly instructing the plaintiff to divorce him; and
7. controlling the parties' finances and only providing the plaintiff with money when she needed/requested it.

While the parties' families had endeavoured to make the parties reconcile, following Eid Mubarak in 2014, the plaintiff left the defendant and returned to her parents' home, where she had remained until the time of the court proceeding. During that time, the defendant continued to terrorise and threaten the plaintiff, leaving the plaintiff with no other option but to seek an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra). The plaintiff also sought custody of the parties' two young children, as well as IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance until the children were adult and independent.

The court deferred to expert Islamic legal opinion in Kitab Ia'natul Thalibin Juz III, which dictates that a court is to grant a wife a divorce if she is no longer happy with her husband. Moreover, citing art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 65 of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, and art 5 of Law No. 23 of 2004 on the Abolition of Domestic Violence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. In its findings, however, it did not explicitly accede to the plaintiff's request for child maintenance payments.

The parties were married on 11 April 2004 and had four children. The applicant submitted that, since 2009, he and the respondent had quarrelled regularly as a result of the applicant's advice to the respondent on how best to conduct herself as a good wife. Problems escalated on 15 April 2014, resulting in the respondent leaving the applicant and their children. The applicant maintained that divorce was the only feasible option.

The respondent responded to the applicant's allegations, stating that it was not just she who had not been a good wife, but the applicant who had not been a good husband, evidenced by his having had an extra-marital affair with another woman. While the respondent had no objections to the applicant's application for divorce, she requested:

1. custody of the parties' four children;
2. that the applicant replace the respondent's jewellery that he had sold;
3. that the applicant repay debts related to the pre-marriage customary dowry; and
4. monetary compensation for iddah (three-month period following divorce having been granted).

The applicant denied having had an extra-marital affair, but rather asserted that the respondent had had an extra-marital affair of her own. The applicant also requested that the court grant custody of the parties' first and second children to the applicant, while granting custody of the parties' third and fourth children to the respondent. The applicant also asserted that, while two pieces of the respondent's jewellery had been sold to pay for instalments on a motorcyle, he was prepared to replace them, as well as to provide the respondent with monetary compensation for iddah, provided it was compatible with his own income, which was sporadic at best. In regards to repaying the dowry, the applicant could not ascertain the amount as it was a family member who had arranged it at the time of the parties' wedding.

Following deliberations, the applicant orally withdrew his application for divorce, while the respondent provided the court with verbal assent to the withdrawal. The court treated both parties' in-court communications as a binding agreement, pursuant to art 1338 of the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata), and ordered the applicant to pay court costs (IDR 381,000).

The parties were married on 29 September 2003 and had two children. Since 2013, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly after the respondent had had an extra-marital affair and then married the other man. Problems escalated and, on 24 September 2014, the respondent left the parties' matrimonial home. As a result, the applicant believed divorce was the only feasible option.

Despite having been summonsed, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the respondent failed to attend court. Citing Surat Al-Baqarah verse 227 from the Qur'an, as well as 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 court acceded to the applicant's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.