SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 8 December 2014 and had one child, who passed away at three months. As early as January 2015, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant would frequently compare the plaintiff with his first wife. On 12 July 2015, it became apparent to the plaintiff that the defendant was not accepting of her children from her first marriage, prioritising his own child (from his first marriage), even becoming physically violent towards her children. On 20 October 2015, when the defendant's child verbally insulted the plaintiff in front of the defendant, the defendant sided with his own child, leading to yet another disagreement between the parties. This led to the plaintiff leaving the matrimonial home for a rental property in Karya Budi, Suka Karya. While the plaintiff lived in this rental property, the defendant never came to visit her, nor did he seek to reconcile their differences, or provide the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support.

Unable to cope any longer with the defendant's behaviour, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra). In the defendant's absence, 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, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 12 July 2010 by the plaintiff's brother, who had also acted as the plaintiff's marriage guardian (wali nikah) as the plaintiff's father had already passed away. The plaintiff submitted that after only three months the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had misled the plaintiff by claiming that he had already divorced his first wife before marrying the plaintiff, which he had not. The plaintiff submitted that she and her family were deeply ashamed by the defendant's actions, particularly by the defendant's failure to produce documentary evidence that he and his first wife had indeed divorced, which had precluded them from registering their marriage with the office of religious affairs. Moreover, while the parties had been separated since 1 March 2011, the defendant had already returned to his first wife. The plaintiff, therefore, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, 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, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 17 November 2011, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents for approximately seven months. While they had already consummated the marriage, the parties had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, since June 2012, the marriage had been unstable because the defendant had left the plaintiff, ostensibly to work in Kalimantan. In actual fact, however, he would never return. On the grounds that the defendant had breached his marriage vows (taklik talak), the plaintiff requested the court grant her an irrevocable divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i) of IDR 10,000.

After hearing from the plaintiff's witnesses, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. 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, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce for a fee on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years, and that the defendant had breached his marriage vows.

The parties were married on 20 November 2011 in Ogan Komering Ulu regency. Their three-year old son was currently under the care of the plaintiff. The parties' marriage had been harmonious for the first two years. Since 2013, however, the marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the defendant was frequently angry with the plaintiff without good cause;
2. the defendant would frequently beat the plaintiff;
3. the defendant's family frequently meddled in the parties' affairs; and
4. the defendant no longer provided the plaintiff with financial support.

Problems escalated in June 2013, compounded by the defendant marrying another woman surreptitiously (nikah sirri), unbeknownst to the plaintiff. Recognising that she was no longer happy in her marriage, as mandated by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her a divorce.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. Acknowledging that the plaintiff's application accorded with art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with 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 court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro) on the grounds that the parties had been apart for two or more years, and ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 12 November 2010 and had one child. Their marriage had been harmonious initially, but by the beginning of 2011 it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. would frequently leave the parties' home without first informing the plaintiff; and
2. would frequently direct profane language at the plaintiff.

The plaintiff submitted that whenever the parties would argue, the defendant would resort to slapping, kicking, and hitting the plaintiff with a plank of wood. Problems came to a head in July 2016, resulting in the defendant leaving the plaintiff to live with his parents. The parties had remained separated for the past four months. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been unsuccessful and the plaintiff, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughro).

Despite the defendant's absence, 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 on the grounds of ongoing conflict. 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.

The parties were married on 21 August 2000 and had two children. Their marriage had been harmonious for the first seven years, but by the beginning of 2007 it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent had carried on an extra-marital affair with another man on 1 November 2016. When the applicant learned of the respondent's extra-marital affair he left her, returning to live with his parents.

The parties had remained separated for the past month. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been unsuccessful and the applicant, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

Despite the respondent's absence, 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 applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. 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.

The parties were married on 21 September 2004 and had four children. Their marriage had been harmonious for the first eight years, but, in October 2012, the defendant, with the plaintiff's permission, left the parties' home to work in Jakarta. At the end of 2013, the defendant returned to Sawahlunto but, for no reason apparent to the plaintiff, chose to live at his parents' home rather than with the plaintiff and their children. The parties had remained separated since. For the past three years, the defendant had also failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial assistance. The plaintiff's attempts to reconcile with the defendant had failed. The plaintiff submitted to the court that the defendant's conduct had repudiated sub-arts (1), (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 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 on the grounds of ongoing conflict. 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.

The parties were married on 27 June 1991 and had three children. Their marriage had been harmonious for the 19 years but, in 2010, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant would frequently:

1. become suspicious of the plaintiff for no apparent reason; and
2. direct profane language at the plaintiff when the parties would argue.

In July 2016, the defendant again directed profanities at the plaintiff and then drove her to her younger brother's home, before returning to his parents' home himself. The parties had remained separated for the past three months in the lead up to the proceeding. The plaintiff, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro).

Despite the defendant's absence, 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 on the grounds of ongoing conflict. 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.

The parties were married on 2 June 2013 and lived together in the applicant’s parents’ home. They had no children. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By August 2014, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly, primarily because the respondent’s parents wanted the respondent to live in their own home and not at the applicants's parents' home. Problems escalated when the respondent left the applicant to live with her parents and the parties separated. The parties' differences were irreconcilable and the applicant requested that the court grant him permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj’i).

The court found that the marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, that the plaintiff’s reasons for the claim satisfied the requirements of art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and art 70(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary as amended by Law No. 3 of 2006 and Law No. 50 of 2009, and art 131(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court, therefore, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj’i) and ordered the applicant to pay all court costs (IDR 516,000).

The parties were married on 8 December 2010. The plaintiff submitted that, after one year and four months of marriage, in August 2010, the marriage had deteriorated because:

1. the defendant had had an extra-marital affair with another woman;
2. the defendant would often drink excessively; and
3. the defendant was often physically violent towards the plaintiff.

The defendant had left the matrimonial home for his girlfriend's home, where he had remained since 10 August 2010 for the four months leading up to the proceeding. Throughout those four months the defendant had neglected his responsibilities to the plaintiff and never once provided her with any form of support.

Despite there still being some communication between the parties, the plaintiff felt it untenable to reunite with the defendant. Given the parties' evident ongoing conflict, 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). It also ordered, pursuant to art 45 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 105(c) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the defendant to pay to the plaintiff IDR 1 million in child maintenance per month until the child was self-sufficient.

The parties were married on 4 March 2013 and had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, at least since 2013, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious. This was the result of:

1. a lack of compatibility and constant difference of opinion between the parties;
2. the defendant no longer providing the plaintiff with emotional and financial support; and
3. the defendant's lack of financial transparency.

The parties separated in 2013 and had not been physically intimate for approximately six months leading up to the proceeding. The plaintiff maintained that she had attempted to reconcile her differences with the defendant by talking to him, but to no avail.

Despite being summonsed formally, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding. The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and arts 33 and 34 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, as well as on the grounds of the defendant's repudiation of arts 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage vows (sighat ta'lik thalak), pursuant to art 119 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 26 July 2008 before a marriage registrar from the local Office of Religious Affairs. They then lived with the respondent's parents before moving to a rental property. The parties also had one child.

The applicant submitted, however, that the parties' marriage became quarrelsome from 25 November 2012, after the applicant discovered that the respondent had been having an extra-marital affair with another man. Since that date the parties had remained separated, had shared no physical intimacy, and their child had remained in the applicant's care. The applicant submitted that he did not want the child to be transferred into the care of the respondent given her recent conduct.

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 37 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, in the respondent's absence, acceded to the plaintiff's application for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The plaintiff submitted that, in May 2009, the parties' had become strained after she relocated to Abu Dhabi a month earlier to work. Upon returning to Indonesia in July that same year, the plaintiff went to live with her elder sibling and since then the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant had physically assaulted her. The defendant, in response, claimed that the plaintiff had never sent him money from Abu Dhabi to assist him in taking care of the parties' two children. The defendant also refuted the plaintiff's submission that the parties' marriage was strained, submitting that he wished the parties would remain married.

Despite mediation between the parties, the plaintiff maintained her request for a divorce. The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, that being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah, warahmah) home, as envisaged in Surat Al-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

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 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 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 19 March 1988 and had four children. They lived on Java for 11 years, before moving to Balikpapan. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. By 2007, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. was dishonest regarding finances;
2. ignored the applicant if he reminded her to pray (sholat);
3. would overreact if the applicant asked her a question; and
4. had obstetric fistula, which prevented her from being physically intimate with the applicant.

The parties separated on 20 May 2013, after the respondent left the matrimonial home. The applicant submitted that he had suffered emotionally as a result and requested the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The Court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 17 April 2011, had one child, and had lived with the respondent's parents in Balikpapan. The marriage had always been quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. never thought the applicant provided her with sufficient financial support, despite the applicant providing her with his entire monthly salary; and
2. failed to appreciate the applicant as her husband, frequently arguing with what the applicant would say.

Problems escalated in April 2014, resulting in the parties separating, the applicant leaving the respondent's parents' home for his parents' home. The applicant submitted that he had suffered emotionally as a result and wished to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 10 October 2010 and had two children. The marriage had been harmonious until November 2013, after which time the parties had begun to quarrel frequently. The applicant submitted that this was because the respondent did not appreciate the applicant as her husband, often flouting the applicant's wishes in public, and had failed to care for the applicant when he was unwell. The respondent had also suggested to the applicant that the parties separate for the sake of the children. Accordingly, the applicant sought a divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 25 October 1991 and had three children. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By December 2008, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. would disrespect the applicant;
2. would often leave the parties' home without telling the applicant; and
3. was unsatisfied with what the applicant could provide.

The applicant submitted that deliberative efforts between the parties to reconcile had failed, and that the parties had been separated since 2009. Accordingly, the applicant sought a divorce (talak satu raj'i) from the respondent.

The Court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The Court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.