SHARIAsource

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 22 December 2007 and had one child (deceased). The plaintiff submitted that, since the beginning of 2015, the parties' marriage had become disharmonious because the defendant:

1. would become excessively jealous;
2. no longer provided the plaintiff with financial support, saving his income for himself;
3. often used profane language, ordering the plaintiff to leave the home when enraged, always demanding a divorce; and
4. often threatened the plaintiff verbally by provoking the plaintiff to divorce him promptly, then pronouncing talak (verbal divorce) himself.

Problems escalated and, in March 2015, the plaintiff left the defendant, believing divorce was the only feasible option.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in surat Ar-Rum verse 21, 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, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 8 January 2013 but had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, since 24 July 2014, the marriage had become disharmonious because:

1. the parties quarrelled regularly, their differences seemingly irreconcilable;
2. the defendant failed to provide his family with sufficient financial support; and
3. the parties were no longer compatible.

Problems escalated when, on 12 August 2014, the defendant arrived in Kendari from Jaya Pura, and only spent one night with the plaintiff before leaving for Bau-Bau without informing the plaintiff or her parents. The parties then remained separated for the next year. Consequently, the plaintiff felt that divorce was the only feasible option remaining.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in surat Ar-Rum verse 21, 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, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 22 July 2006 and had one child. The applicant submitted that, since 2010, he and the respondent had begun to quarrel regularly because, among other things, the applicant:

1. did not listen to the applicant's suggestions and advice; and
2. prioritised her career and occupation over executing her responsibilities as a wife.

Problems escalated in 2012, resulting in the applicant leaving the parties' matrimonial home. The applicant believed that the marriage was irreparable, making divorce the only feasible option.

Despite the respondent failing to attend court, the court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in surat Ar-Rum verse 21, and art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, 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, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 21 January 2013 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2013, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly because the defendant:

1. often directed profanities at the plaintiff;
2. rarely provided the plaintiff with financial support; and
3. often physically assaulted the plaintiff.

Problems escalated in 2013, resulting in the plaintiff leaving the parties' matrimonial home. The plaintiff believed that the marriage was irreparable, making divorce the only feasible option.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in surat Ar-Rum verse 21, and art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, 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, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 1 September 2005 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that, since May 2008, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair, and was often intoxicated. When problems escalated not long after, the defendant left the matrimonial home and the parties remained separated for the next seven years. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, 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, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 20 May 2007 and had lived with the respondent's parents. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. By 2012, however, it had become quarrelsome. By mid-2013, the respondent's family had begun to meddle in the parties' domestic affairs. The applicant also submitted that, after six years of marriage, the parties had no children, to the applicant's dismay. By July 2013, the parties had separated, and had agreed to divorce and return to their respective parents' homes.

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 4 June 1977 and had three children. The applicant submitted that the marriage had been harmonious until 5 March 2014, after which time the respondent refused to comply with the applicant's wish to sell the family home. The applicant maintained that he had wished to sell the home to provide his family with financial security following his own retirement. For the past two months, the parties had been sleeping in separate rooms, and the applicant's efforts to reconcile with the respondent had been in vain. Accordingly, he requested that the court grant him a divorce (talak).

In dismissing the applicant's request, the court found that the problem between the parties was not insurmountable, and that the respondent's lack of compliance with the applicant's wishes was because the applicant had intended to sell the family home, unbeknownst to the respondent. Moreover, the court believed it more important to save the parties' marriage, which had already survived the test of time. The court found 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, that being a happy and joyful family based on the principle of One Almighty God, was not lost. In addition, the applicant's grounds for divorce, being ongoing conflict pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was unfounded.

The parties were married on 18 July 2012 and had one child. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By the beginning of 2014, however, when the plaintiff enrolled in an undergraduate university degree, the parties began to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant would become unnecessarily jealous, and intoxicated frequently. The defendant also had an aversion to praying (sholat) and fasting. In May 2014, after another argument, the defendant left the parties' home, since which time the parties had remained separated. During those seven months the defendant had also failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. The plaintiff, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The court, pursuant to art 19(a) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(a) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of both the defendant's alcoholism and ongoing conflict. It also acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, being a happy and joyful domestic life, as prescribed in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as a peaceful, hopeful and loving marriage, as contained in art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and verse 21 of the Qur'an, Surat Ar-Rum, was no longer feasible.

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.

This Supreme Court jurisdiction states that divorce can be granted where a marriage is marred by irreconcilable ongoing conflict, to the extent that, with the approval of both the families of both parties, the parties are no longer co-existing under the same roof.

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 4 Feburary 2016. The plaintiff's father had served as the marriage guardian (wali nikah), the parties were married by the local imam, two witnesses had been present, and the dowry (mas kawin) had been a two-gram ring purchased with cash. The parties did not, however, have a marriage book (buku nikah), which the plaintiff required for administrative purposes in order to divorce the defendant.

The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had only been harmonious until the end of February 2016, when it had become increasingly quarrelsome. The plaintiff, therefore, requested that the court declare the parties' marriage lawful, and grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

On the day of the proceeding, however, the defendant failed to attend because, despite having been summonsed by the court bailiff, he had never received the summons as no one in the defendant's community, including authorities, knew him. Moreover, the court had counselled the plaintiff to first locate the defendant and then seek to reconcile with him. The plaintiff, acting on the court's advice, opted to withdraw her application.

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 Sultan of Brunei enacted this document on December 10, 1911, with the approval of Harvey Chevallier, British Resident of Brunei. It defines and prescribes punishments for certain offenses committed by "persons professing the Muhammadan religion." Most of these pertain to marriage law.