SHARIAsource

This ministerial regulation regulates the procedural requirements related to the marriage, divorce and reconciliation of Ministry of Defence officials, in terms of requesting and obtaining the permission of their superior officer to marry, divorce or reconcile with their spouse.

The parties were married on 29 Feburary 1996 in accordance with Islamic tradition. After marrying they lived in Banda Aceh where they had two children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that since 2007 the parties had quarrelled regularly because the defendant was:

1. not transparent with his finances;
2. inattentive to the plaintiff's biological needs; and
3. very argumentative.

Accordingly, the plaintiff sought a judicial divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra).

The court acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 65 of Law No. 7 of 1989, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 391,000).

The parties were married in Aceh Besar, in accordance with Islamic tradition, and had no children. The plaintiff's father had acted as the parties' marriage guardian (wali nikah), the dowry (mahar) was six grams of gold's worth in cash, and the plaintiff requested that the chief justice ratify the parties' nuptials in order that she might file for a judicial divorce. After two days of marriage, the defendant had left the plaintiff, never to return. Over the past seven years the plaintiff had not heard from the defendant, nor knew anything in regards to his whereabouts.

The plaintiff's application was dismissed, however, on the grounds that neither the plaintiff or defendant were in attendance. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 391,000).

The parties were married on 14 February 2012. After marrying, they had lived with the plaintiff's parents for more than a year, before moving to a rental property, where they then lived for one month before separating and returning to their respective parents' homes. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had quarrelled regularly because:

1. the defendant was selfish and frequently angry for no apparent reason;
2. the defendant was aggressive and frequently hit the plaintiff;
3. the defendant frequently directed profane language at the plaintiff; and
4. the parties had already divorced three times.

Problems escalated in October 2013, resulting in the parties separating, where they had remained until the time of the proceeding. Familial efforts to reconcile the parties had proved to be only temporarily successful, and the plaintiff believed the parties' differences were irreconcilable.

Despite the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in shughra), acknowledging that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and surat Al-rum verse 21, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan warahmah) homelife was no longer feasible. Moreover, that, 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, ongoing conflict between the parties was sufficient reason to grant a divorce.

The parties were married on 3 January 2013. Their marriage was arranged by their parents, and they had never been in love with one another. While they had lived together for two months, they had never consummated their marriage. Moreover, the defendant had ordered the plaintiff to return home to Meuria Paloh, after which the defendant verbally divorced the plaintiff over the telephone. The parties had not lived together since 9 March 2013, and the plaintiff had not returned to the defendant after the defendant orally divorced her.

Despite the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in shughra), acknowledging that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and surat Al-rum verse 21, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan warahmah) homelife was no longer feasible. Moreover, that, 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, ongoing conflict between the parties was sufficient reason to grant a divorce.

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 appellant successfully requested that the court affirm a decision by the Bireuen Shari'a Court (Decision: 11/Pdt.G/2013/MS-Bir) to grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The parties were married on 6 July 2008 and had one child (born on 23 January 2010). They had lived together in Singgalang for two months before moving to Padang, before then returning to live in Singgalang on 24 August 2014. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. After returning to live in Singgalang, however, the defendant, with the plaintiff's blessing, left to look for employment. The defendant never returned and left the plaintiff nothing of value to sell to provide herself and her child with financial support. At the time of the proceeding, the parties had already been separated for a year, and efforts on the part of the plaintiff and her family to locate the defendant had been in vain. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the Court grant her a divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i).

Acknowledging that the defendant had breached points 2 and 4 of his wedding vows (sighat taklik talak), the court, purusant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request and granted her a divorce for a fee (iwadh) of IDR 10,000.

The parties were married on 24 October 2008 and had one child (born on 9 March 2010). After they married they lived with the plaintiff's parents in Padang until they separated. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. On 13 October 2010, however, the parties quarrelled when the plaintiff requested that the defendant purchase gold earrings for the parties' child, who was only six months old. The plaintiff submitted that the request caused the defendant to become angry, orally divorce the plaintiff, and immediately leave the matrimonial home. For the next four years the parties remained separated, during which time the defendant failed to provide for the plaintiff, nor did he leave behind any items of value that the plaintiff could sell to provide herself with financial assistance. Moreover, the plaintiff did not know of the defendant's whereabouts. The plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The court, pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two years.

The parties were married on 5 December 2014, after which they lived in a rental property owned by the respondent's parents in Siteba for just one day, before the respondent left for no apparent reason. The applicant returned to his parents' home, while the respondent appeared at her parents' home four days after leaving. After separating, the applicant learned that the respondent had struggled with the concept of being married to the applicant (the parties' marriage was arranged), and had not been prepared to marry the applicant.

On 29 December 2014, the parties underwent counselling, with the assistance of family and a mediator from the Office of Religious Affairs. The counselling, however, was in vain. The applicant decided that the parties could not remain married and requested the Court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

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, acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 22 October 1997 and had three children. For the first 10 years of their marriage, the parties lived in Padang, but, at the end of 2007, the defendant moved to South Tangerang, Banten, until mid-January 2010, before returning to Padang. The parties' marriage had been harmonious until mid-2007, when it then became quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. admitted to taking the parties' shop title and selling it to another company to pay off debts, unbeknownst to the plaintiff, before then absconding after the plaintiff requested that the defendant and his family come to some resolution following his dishonest conduct;
2. was unaccountable for his own actions;
3. undervalued the plaintiff's children from her first marriage;
4. was dishonest with the plaintiff; and
5. often forbade the plaintiff's daughter from being friends with other boys.

At the beginning of February 2012, the defendant accused the plaintiff's daughter of going out with a boy, leaving the home and calling the daughter telling her to return home. When the plaintiff's daughter disputed the allegations made by the defendant, the defendant became angry and used profane language with her. In mid-February 2012, the defendant left the matrimonial home without informing the plaintiff and moved to a rental property in South Tangerang. Since then the parties had remained separated, during which time the defendant had provided the plaintiff with no financial support for two years and 10 months.

The plaintiff, believing the parties marriage was irreparable, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra). The court acceded to the request, finding sufficient reason to grant a divorce, as required by art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 134 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court, 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, granted the plaintiff a divorce on the grounds of the parties being apart for more than two years, and ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 8 July 1995 and had three children (born 10 April 1996, 28 March 2002, and 2 February 2007). After they married they lived in Padang for a year, before moving to Jakarta for two years, then to Medan for six months, before finally returning to Padang. The marriage was harmonious for the first 15 years, before it became quarrelsome in mid-2010. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide enough for the plaintiff and their family;
2. was abusive towards the plaintiff's family; and
3. was known to have to have stolen money from people that lived near the parties' home, which reflected badly on the plaintiff.

The plaintiff also submitted that when the parties would argue, the defendant would use inappropriate language with her, even once hitting the plaintiff, causing her plaintiff physical and emotional suffering. Problems escalated on 23 December 2014 when the defendant appropriated IDR 21 million from another person's savings account. This left the plaintiff requesting that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), feeling as though she could no longer sustain a marriage with the defendant.

The court acceded to the request, finding sufficient reason to grant a divorce, as required by art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 134 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it granted the plaintiff a divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 10 December 2006 and had two children (born: 22 February 2008 and 9 November 2013). They had lived with the plaintiff's parents in Padang for approximately five years, before moving to the defendant's parents' home until they separated. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. After five years, however, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant had:

1. frequently brought other women home;
2. failed to show sufficient care for the plaintiff and their children; and
3. been an irresponsible husband, failing to provide enough for his family financially.

The plaintiff also submitted that whenever the parties would quarrel, the defendant would resort using profane language, which would upset the plaintiff. Familial mediation had also proven to be in vain. Problems escalated on 2 December 2014 when the plaintiff caught the defendant telephoning someone she did not know. Then the defendant became angry when the plaintiff suggested the parties collect their children from the plaintiff's parents' home, appearing to be more interested in talking to the person on his phone. This resulted in the defendant orally divorcing the plaintiff, after which the plaintiff left the plaintiff's parents' home for her own parents' home. Since then the parties had remained separated.

The plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra). 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 parties were married on 30 March 2001, after having divorced in 1999. They had two children. Several years after remarrying, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly due to differences of opinion. The plaintiff submitted that this problem had not been insurmountable, however, as evidenced by the parties remarrying in 2001 for the sake of their children. Regardless, the parties would often quarrel, the plaintiff submitted, because the defendant had failed to appreciate her as his wife, and because the defendant would exacerbate trivial issues in order to start an argument with the plaintiff. The plaintiff also conceded that she would go quiet when the defendant would start arguing with her because she was embarrassed to be seen arguing with the defendant by the parties' children, their neighbours, and family.

For the past six years the parties had been sleeping in separate beds, after the defendant had chosen to sleep in another room. This had gravely affected the plaintiff. Problems escalated during Eid al-Fitr (Idul Fitri) in 2014 when the defendant confessed to having married another woman without the plaintiff's permission. The plaintiff learned from the defendant that his other wife lived in East Java, and that they had been married for the past two years. When given an ultimatum by the plaintiff, the defendant had chosen to maintain both marriages. As a result, the plaintiff felt there was no other course available but to divorce.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) 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.

The parties were married on 20 February 2004 and had two children, both of whom were now in the care of the respondent. The applicant submitted that, since June 2013, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent had failed to appreciate the applicant as her husband, often insulting and shaming him, as well as arguing with him. Problems escalated on 7 August 2013, resulting in the parties separating.

The respondent submitted, in response, that much of her behaviour and poor treatment of the applicant was in response to the applicant having had extra-marital affairs since the respondent was pregnant. In compensation for the applicant being granted a divorce, the respondent sought IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance, IDR 6 million for iddah (three-month period following divorce), as well as IDR 150 million for the construction of the parties' home in Panaikang, Pangkep, South Sulawesi, or that the home be registered in the name of the parties' two children. The applicant was content with the parties' children remaining in the respondent's care, but submitted that IDR 500,000 per month in child maintenance, IDR 1.5 million for iddah, and IDR 5 million for the home was sufficient.

The court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), pursuant to 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. It granted the respondent custody of the parties' children, however, while ordering the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance, IDR 3 million for iddah, and IDR 5 million in regards to the construction of the home, as the parties had only contributed IDR 10 million towards its construction collectively. It also noted that information provided by witnesses corroborated to suggest that the applicant had indeed been having extra-marital affairs.

The parties were married on 7 September 2005 and had two children. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. By the beginning of 2012, however, it had become quarrelsome as the defendant would become unnecessarily suspicious of the plaintiff, and stopped providing her with financial support. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant would also drink excessively and, when intoxicated, become argumentative. While the plaintiff tolerated the defendant's behaviour for the sake of maintaining the marriage, in February 2014, during an argument, the defendant struck the plaintiff, caused damage to the parties' home, and took all of the plaintiff's clothes to his parents' home.

In March 2014, the plaintiff and her parents relocated to Tobelo, the plaintiff no longer being able to cope with the defendant's behaviour. For the past year the parties had remained separated, the defendant providing the plaintiff with no financial support during that year. Accordingly, 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.

In the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, concurring with the plaintiff that the marriage was indeed beyond repair.

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 14 September 1987 and had four children. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. By August 2004, however, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant had a tendency to become jealous, which often became the source of an argument. In December 2014, when the plaintiff returned home late one night, the defendant accused her of having been in the company of another man. The defendant then struck the plaintiff in the cheek and shoulder. In the beginning of June 2015, the defendant accused the plaintiff of having an extra-marital affair, which the plaintiff denied. In the ensuing argument, the defendant threatened to kill the plaintiff and throw hydrochloric acid in her face. Since then, the parties had slept in separate rooms, and the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support.

Feeling 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). 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 22 May 1999 and had four children. For the first seven years of their marriage the parties lived in Sinabang, before the plaintiff returned to her parents' home in Kuala Makmur in November 2007. By May 2005, the marriage had become quarrelsome after the defendant had an extra-marital affair. Problems escalated on 14 November 2007 when the plaintiff learned that the defendant had married another woman. The plaintiff submitted that she had returned to her parents' home after the defendant married this other woman because he had no longer shown any care or regard for her and their children. Moreover, for the past eight years the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support. Accordingly, she requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) and, owing to her own impecuniosity, waive any court fees.

The court, 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, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of the parties having been apart for two years or more and ongoing conflict respectively. It also determined that the court fee would be borne by the state.

The parties were married on 22 August 2008 and had two children, who were now in the plaintiff's care. The parties lived in the village of Sembilan before, in March 2014, the plaintiff moved to Ameria Bahagia and the defendant to Damai Makmur. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By March 2010, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had begun to smoke marijuana and gamble, among other illicit (haram) activities.

Problems escalated in March 2015 when it was discovered that the defendant had sold his motorcycle for IDR 3 million to his brother to feed his gambling addiction. When the plaintiff confronted the defendant over this he grabbed a machete, seemingly with the intent to kill the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently moved to her grandfather's home in Ameria Bahagia.

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), and, owing to her own impecuniosity, waive any court fees. 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. It also determined that the court fee would be borne by the state.