SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 27 December 2006 and had one child. The plaintiff's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry (mahar) had been IDR 200,000 and a prayer instrument. Since the beginning of 2015, however, the marriage had been disharmonious. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant:

1. would regularly become angry with the plaintiff for no apparent reason;
2. would regularly leave the parties' home, unbeknownst to the plaintiff; and
3. rarely provided the plaintiff with financial and emotional support.

On 25 June 2016, problems escalated when the defendant confessed to having had an extra-marital affair. The defendant then left the plaintiff without first informing her, never to return. Realising that the purpose of marriage, as prescribed in Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, had been frustrated, the plaintiff filed an application for a judicial divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra).

The court acknowledged that the information provided by the plaintiff's two witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions, and that the defendant had not returned home, nor had he provided a forwarding address. The purpose of marriage, as prescribed in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, that being to create an everlasting and joyful family, was no longer feasible. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court therefore acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 19 May 2013 and had no children. The applicant submitted that, since December 2013, the marriage had become quarrelsome primarily because of the parties' frequent differences of opinion. Problems escalated on 8 February 2014, resulting in the parties separating.

Due to the ongoing conflict between the parties, 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, the court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had recently become quarrelsome. This was the result of their lack of compatibility, that from the beginning of their marriage the parties had lived separately, and that the applicant and respondent had already agreed to separate. 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 applicant's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 15 February 2001 but had been living separately for the past 11 years and six months. Their marriage had begun to deteriorate in August 2002 because, according to one witness, the defendant had failed to provide his family with sufficient financial support.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra), 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, on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Lhokseumawe Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (thalak satu ba'in sughra).

The Court recounted how the respondent had left the appellant, and how the appellant had married another woman unbeknownst to the respondent. This, the Court believed, had made their marriage untenable. For the purposes of art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, the Court believed the lower court had found sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce.

The Bireuen Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra). The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the lower court's decision, the Court noting that marriage is not just an everyday agreement to live together as husband and wife, but a holy agreement that cannot be measured by the mistakes of one of the parties to it. Like the lower court, the Court in this instance was also convinced the marriage was irreparable and that divorce was the best option for both parties.

The parties were married on 31 August 2004 and had one child. For the first two years of their marriage the parties had lived together in a rental property on a university campus, after which they separated indefinitely. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2007, the marriage had been disharmonious as a result of regular quarrelling, resulting from the defendant:

1. often physically assaulting the plaintiff; and
2. not providing the plaintiff with emotional and financial support since 2011.

After inspecting the plaintiff's claim, however, the court determined that the plaintiff's place of residence was outside the bounds of its jurisdiction and, therefore, dismissed the claim.

The parties were married on 5 September 1999, the plaintiff's father acting as the parties' wedding guardian (wali nikah). The parties had two children. The parties' marriage certificate (buku nikah), however, had not been issued, and when the plaintiff inquired with the Sekupang Office of Religious Affairs as to its status, it became apparent that the marriage had never been officially registered.

After the first year of marriage, the plaintiff alleged that the parties had begun to quarrel because the defendant:

1. had not provided the plaintiff and their children with sufficient financial support, only working for himself, without showing any care for the plaintiff and their family;
2. had a temperamental nature, always physically assaulting the plaintiff if the parties had a verbal disagreement;
3. often left the matrimonial home without any reason, returning home in the middle of the night or the next morning;
4. would prioritise himself over the plaintiff and their children, not purchasing the children clothing, for example; and
5. had already divorced (pronounced talak) the plaintiff on 28 April 2003 on paper (with stamp-duty paid).

After divorcing the plaintiff, the defendant had left her and their children, ignoring the plaintiff's attempts to reconcile and reunite. The plaintiff believed that divorce was now the only feasible option. The plaintiff also sought custody of the children, who were already living under her care, the defendant having shown no interest in their well-being.

In ratifying the parties' marriage, the court acknowledged that the plaintiff had submitted a marriage ratification application for the purposes of divorce, pursuant to art 7(3)(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. It also conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, and Manhaj al-Thullab juz VI, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

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 26 November 2006. By 2008, however, they had begun to quarrel regularly. The applicant submitted that this was the result of:

1. the respondent's incredibly selfish nature;
2. the respondent not executing her responsibilities as a wife; and
3. the respondent always being emotional for no apparent reason.

Problems escalated on 5 June 2010, resulting in a disagreement between the parties that led them to separating. In his claim, the applicant 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 noted that, 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, sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict existed to grant the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu ba'in raj'i).

The parties were married on 15 January 2005 and had two children. Since August 2011, however, they had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of:

1. the defendant having had an extra-marital affair, which she had discovered based on the contents of certain text messages in the defendant's mobile phone;
2. the defendant having failed to provide the plaintiff with routine financial support; and
3. a debate involving the defendant's family regarding a debt the defendant's older sibling owed to the plaintiff.

Problems escalated on 26 August 2011, resulting in the plaintiff leaving the matrimonial home. 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 noted that, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, it was required to mediate the parties (despite the defendant's absence), 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 shughra).

The parties were married on 22 July 2008. They lived in the plaintiff’s grandmother’s home for five years and had one child (aged 6). Initially, the marriage was harmonious. By 2012, however, they had begun to quarrel regularly. One of the main causes of dispute was which school their child should attend.

Problems escalated in February 2013, and the plaintiff left the defendant and the matrimonial home to live with her parents. The parties remained separated for two years during which time they communicated, but the defendant did not provide the plaintiff with any financial support. In 2015, the plaintiff sought a divorce on the grounds that the parties' differences were irreconcilable. Pre-trial mediation had also proved to be unsuccessful.

The court found that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 3 and art 77(1) and (2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a happy and harmonious home life, was no longer feasible. Therefore, there were sufficient reasons, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 19(f) and (b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and (b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The parties were married on 4 January 1996. They had lived with the plaintiff’s parents for 19 years and had two children (aged 18 and 13). Initially, their marriage was harmonious. By July 2013, however, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant:

1. had had extra-marital affairs, rarely came home, and did not provide her or their family with financial support; and
2. often gambled.

Problems escalated in January 2015 resulting in the parties sleeping in separate beds for two months. The parties continued to communicate, but the defendant did not provide the plaintiff with any financial support. The parties’ attempts to reconcile were also unsuccessful.

The plaintiff sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. In the defendant's absence, the court found that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Surat ar Rum 21 of the Qur'an, and art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, being a joyful and enduring household, was no longer feasible. Therefore, the court, pursuant to art 39 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, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba’in Sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The plaintiff was ordered to pay court costs (IDR 316,000).

The parties were married on 28 August 2007. They lived together in the plaintiff’s parent’s home for seven years and seven months and had one child (aged 7). Initially, the marriage was harmonious, but, by June 2012, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that:

1. the defendant seldom worked and did not care for the plaintiff or their child, did not reasonably contribute to the marriage, and often physically assaulted the plaintiff when the parties would argue; and
2. the defendant regularly consumed alcohol.

Problems escalated in September 2014, culminating in the parties separating. The parties did not communicate, and the defendant did not provide financial support to the plaintiff. The parties’ attempts to reconcile failed. The plaintiff, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, sought an irrevocable divorce and an exemption from paying court costs owing to her own impecuniosity.

The court found that the parties could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage, as stipulated in art 1 of Law No 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba'in Sughro). The court also exempted the plaintiff from paying court costs, shifting that burden to the state via the 2015 Malang Religious Court Budget Implementation Register (DIPA Pengadilan Agama Malang Tahun 2015).

The parties were married on 25 June 2006, had lived together in the plaintiff’s parents' home for two years, and had one child (aged 8). Initially, the marriage was harmonious. By June 2007, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had never provided her with financial support, and that the defendant would often leave the plaintiff without any warning or reason. The marriage deteriorated and the defendant moved to his parents' house. The plaintiff claimed that these circumstances had led to irreconcilable disharmony in the marriage, and requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in sughro).

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(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds that the parties had been apart for longer than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict.

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 Sigli Shari'a Court (lower court) had declared the parties' marriage lawful, and then granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The appellant sought to overturn this decision. The Court, however, found the reasoning of the lower court to be sound and accurate and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

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 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 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).