SHARIAsource

On August 3, 2022, the Sharia Court of Appeal of Kwara State in Nigeria at Ilorin decided in Mohammed v. Mohammed that a deceased man’s second and third wives were not entitled to inheritance under Islamic estate laws because he married his first wife under the secular Marriage Act. The man’s second and third wives were suing upon his death for inheritance claims under sharīʿa, but the Court held that, for those marriages to have been valid under sharīʿa, the man would have had to divorce his first wife, whom he had married under the Marriage Act and not according to norms of Islamic law. By contrast, because the deceased had married his first wife under the Marriage Act, the Court held that the law governing the distribution of his estate was the law of Kwara State, not Islamic law, or sharīʿa.

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (Shri Lanka Prajatantrika Samajavadi Janarajaya/Ilankai Jananayaka Choshalichak Kutiyarachu), based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under Sri Lanka's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has some legal status. 

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the Lebanon Republic (Al Jumhuriyah al Lubnaniyah), based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under Lebanon's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has no legal status. 

The parties were married on 5 October 1993. They had lived together in the defendant’s parents' home for 19 years and 10 months. The parties had two children (age 20 and 14). Initially the marriage was harmonious, but, by September 2006, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had failed to adequately provide for their family due to his own lack of support and care for his family, not having a steady income, and not wanting to work.

Problems escalated in August 2013 resulting in the plaintiff leaving the defendant to live at her parents' home. The parties lived apart for one year and seven months, during which time they did not communicate and the defendant provided the plaintiff with no financial support.

Reconciliation attempts having failed, the plaintiff, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, sought an irrevocable divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict and the parties' matrimony no longer being harmonious, as stipulated in Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

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. Moreover, 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, there were sufficient reasons to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba’in Sughro). The plaintiff was ordered to pay court costs (IDR 316,000).

The parties were married on 14 August 2013 before a marriage registry official from the local Office of Religious Affairs. The plaintiff submitted that, from the beginning of their marriage, she and the defendant had quarrelled often. The plaintiff claimed this was due to the defendant's temperamental and unstable nature, his gambling addiction, and his use of profane language, which he would direct at the plaintiff.

Problems escalated on 5 October 2013 when, three days into living together in their rental property, the parties had a major altercation. The defendant telephoned the plaintiff's brother-in-law, but, as he was unable to attend the property, the plaintiff's older sister arrived and suggested that the parties calm down and that the plaintiff return to the plaintiff's parents' home. That evening the defendant texted the plaintiff's brother-in-law saying that he was leaving the rental property, that he had sold the parties' household items, and that he was taking the parties' vehicle. The plaintiff had since attempted to contact the defendant but his mobile phone had been inactive. The plaintiff also did not know the defendant's whereabouts, and, since his departure, the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support. Accordingly, pursuant to the parties' marriage vows, the plaintiff was prepared to pay the agreed sum of money ('iwadh) to divorce the defendant.

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, found that because the defendant had contravened figures 1, 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage contract, the evidentiary burden for divorce contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage had been met. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce based on the plaintiff paying to the defendant IDR 10,000 (talak satu khul'i).

The plaintiff and defendant were married on 3 September 2007 and had their first and only child on 7 August 2008. Around the same time, however, the parties had begun to quarrel because the plaintiff's parents did not approve of the plaintiff's relationship with the defendant. Their disapproval was based on the defendant misleading them all by saying he had not been married before, when, in actual fact, he had been married and already had a child from his previous marriage. The plaintiff and her parents knew this because the defendant's child from his previous marriage would often come to the parties' home asking for money.

The defendant had left the matrimonial home and the parties had been separated for approximately five years. The defendant would also visit the child he had with the plaintiff at the plaintiff's parents' home for the first four months of the child's life, after which he stopped visiting. The plaintiff did not know of the defendant's whereabouts, and the defendant had failed to provide financially for the plaintiff since their separation. Pursuant to the parties' marriage agreement, the plaintiff was prepared to pay the agreed sum of money ('iwadh) to divorce the defendant.

The court, pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, found that because the defendant had contravened figures 1, 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage contract by leaving for three consecutive years, not providing the plaintiff with any financial support for three months (the defendant had failed to do so for two years), and not caring for the plaintiff for more than six months, the evidentiary burden for divorce contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage had been met. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce based on the plaintiff paying to the defendant IDR 10,000 (talak satu khul'i).

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 12 March 2001 and had three children. The defendant had lived with the plaintiff's parents for the first six months of the marriage, before relocating to Malaysia. After a period of time in Malaysia, he returned to Indonesia to bring the plaintiff with him back to Malaysia. The marriage had been harmonious up until the birth of the parties' first child in 2003, after which time it had become quarrelsome and violent. The defendant would kick and beat the plaintiff frequently, even once sadistically beating her in front of her own parents.

In an effort to stem her exposure to this physical violence, the plaintiff slept in a separate bedroom from the defendant, but the violence continued. In August 2012, the plaintiff finally left the matrimonial home and, in her application for a divorce, told the court that the purpose of marriage, being a peaceful, hopeful, and loving (sakinah, mawaddah, dan rahmah) domestic life, was no longer feasible.

While the defendant disputed the plaintiff's allegations, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, acknowledging that the marriage was beyond repair. 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, as well as verse 21 of the Qur'an, surat ar-Rum, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 23 October 2013. While they had consummated their marriage they had no children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had only been harmonious for five days before becoming quarrelsome. This was because the defendant:

1. suffered from premature ejaculation;
2. had never provided the plaintiff with financial support but had provided his parents with such support;
3. had a tendency to leave the parties' home for two weeks or more on end, never leaving the plaintiff with any money to purchase groceries; and
4. was not transparent about his own finances.

The plaintiff also submitted that three months after their wedding, the defendant had borrowed the plaintiff's dowry (10 grams of gold) for his brother, the defendant's brother promising he would return it within two weeks. The defendant's brother would never return the dowry. Then, on 12 December 2014, the defendant returned to his parents' home ostensibly to pick fresh chilli. He never returned and on the 15th day his parents attended the local imam's home to issue a marriage annulment notice for the plaintiff. Since then the parties had officially separated. The plaintiff submitted that, as a result, the parties' marriage could no longer be peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah, warahmah). In order that the parties did not contravene legal and religious norms, the plaintiff submitted that it would be best for the parties to divorce.

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) and of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of the parties having been separated for more than two years and ongoing conflict respectively.

The parties had a clandestine marriage on 4 February 1997 in Bandar Lampung, after which time they had lived in Kalianda for approximately three years, before moving to Kenten. They had three children, all of whom were, at the time of the proceeding, in the care of the defendant. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for 13 years, until April 2015, at which time the defendant had divorced the plaintiff, also in a clandestine manner. On 23 October 2015 the parties remarried, this time registering their marriage with their local Office of Religious Affairs. A week later their marriage became quarrelsome again because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. had financially deceived the plaintiff with regards to a business;
2. would always tell the plaintiff he regretted his decision to remarry, simultaneously ordering the plaintiff to leave the parties' home in front of their children;
3. was frequently angry with plaintiff; and
4. had not, since November 2015, provided the plaintiff with any spending money for household necessities, thereby compelling the plaintiff to work herself.

Problems escalated in November 2015 when the plaintiff requested that the defendant provide her some money. On this occasion, when the defendant became angry, the plaintiff decided that she could no longer cope with the defendant's treatment of her and that divorce was the only option. The parties had, as a result, remained separated for the five months leading up to the proceeding.

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 Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

In Indonesia, the Islamic practice of polygamy is circumscribed by specific provisions in Law No.1 of 1974 on Marriage. Mohammad Insa was a Muslim man who wished to take a second wife without any state interference, and without due consideration for the rights and feelings of his established wife. He argued that polygamy is a religious duty, and one that he was entitled to undertake in accordance with the 1945 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion. He petitioned the court for a judicial review of those legal restrictions on polygamous marriages. This decision to dismiss his petition was handed down by the court on 3 October 2007, after several months of lengthy deliberations and media attention. The court reasoned that art 28J(2) of the Constitution not only authorises the state to regulate religion, but obliges it do so.

The parties were married on 29 January 2006 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since February 2010, the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was the result of the defendant having had an extra-marital affair, and subsequently having a child with the other woman.

Problems escalated in July 2014 with the plaintiff leaving the matrimonial home at the request of the defendant. Despite the plaintiff's efforts to reconcile with the defendant, even requesting the help of family, the plaintiff became convinced their differences were irreconcilable.

The defendant had been summonsed formally but failed to attend court. 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 plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra).

The parties were married on 7 August 2003 and had no children. In January 2004, however, the defendant left the matrimonial home for no apparent reason and without saying anything. For the next seven years the defendant never returned or provided the plaintiff with any financial support. The plaintiff emphasised in court that the defendant's conduct over the past seven years meant any hope of reconciliation was untenable.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i) on the grounds that the defendant had contravened his marriage vows (janji ta'lik talak).

The applicant submitted that on 30 December 2012, 30 days after marrying the respondent (NB: actual date of marriage was 3 December 2012), the respondent struck the applicant and argued with him for several months. In July 2014, the respondent confessed to having had an extra-marital affair, the respondent then leaving their home without the applicant's permission. Despite trying to reunite with the respondent, even requesting the help of the respondent's family, the applicant claimed their differences were irreconcilable.

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) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 8 March 2008 and had one child. The applicant submitted, however, that, since January 2013, the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was the result of:

1. the respondent often rebelling against the advice and wishes of the applicant and no longer appreciating the applicant as the head of the household; and
2. the respondent always demanding more of the applicant.

Problems escalated in August 2013 causing the parties to separate. They had been living separately for approximately a year prior to this divorce proceeding.

Despite being summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend court. 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 parties were married on 20 December 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since February 2013, the marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant was no longer providing the family with sufficient financial support. Consequently, the plaintiff and defendant had been separated for more than a year.

The court's efforts to counsel the plaintiff and reunite her with the defendant were unsuccessful and, accordingly, 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 plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak bain shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The applicant submitted that the parties had begun to quarrel regularly because the respondent would often leave the matrimonial home unbeknownst to the applicant and, on 4 June 2013, the respondent had relocated to her parents' home without the applicant's permission.

The applicant told the court that his efforts to reconcile with the respondent had been in vain, and that he believed their marriage to no longer be tenable. The respondent failed to attend the proceeding, despite having been formally summonsed. In the respondent'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, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

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

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

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

The parties' were married on 27 March 2003 and had one child. By January 2007, however, their marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant was not able to provide his family with sufficient financial support. The marriage broke down in July 2007, resulting in the defendant leaving the plaintiff for approximately four years, during which time the defendant failed to provide the plaintiff with any emotional or financial support.

Satisfied that the plaintiff had met the evidentiary requirements contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, 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 for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 12 August 2006. Initially the marriage was harmonious. Since September 2013, however, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was due to:

1. the defendant having been an irresponsible husband, i.e. not valuing, respecting, caring for and loving the plaintiff as his wife;
2. the defendant having had extra-marital affairs in October 2006, in 2008, and then again in September 2013; and
3. the plaintiff no longer being able to maintain a domestic partnership with the defendant, resulting in the parties separating on 10 November 2013.

Due to the ongoing conflict between the parties the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (thalak satu ba'in sughro), 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.