SHARIAsource

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Takengon Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The Court dismissed the appeal, however, stating that it had considered the appellant's objections to the lower court's decision but saw no flaws in the lower court's reasoning.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Takengon Shari'a Court (lower court), which had dismissed his claim. In upholding the lower court's judgment, however, the Court held that the appellant's claim lacked clarity and contradicted his response to the lower court's judgment.

The appellants sought to challenge the decision of the Lhokseumawe Shari'a Court, which had stipulated the beneficiaries of the deceased's will, as well as the way in which the estate of the deceased was to be distributed.

The Court found no reason to allow the appeal, affirming the decision of the lower court.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Lhoksukon Shari'a Court (lower court), which had determined which items of the parties constituted joint assets.

The Court found that the appellant's application for appeal was based on an unlawful power of attorney, meaning the appeal had to be dismissed.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court), which had determined what constituted the joint assets of the parties, and distributed those assets between the parties.

The Court agreed with the ruling of the lower court, however, it decided to restipulate the assets, and specified that the assets would be distributed between the parties on a 50/50 basis.

The appellants sought to challenge the decision of the Bireuen Shari'a Court, which had rejected their inheritance claim in full and ordered them to pay costs.

The Court concurred with the lower court that the appellants' original claim was legally flawed and, accordingly, unclear. While the Court said this per se was grounds for dismissal, the lower court had adjudicated the appellants' claim regardless. As the lower court arrived at the same conclusion, the Court felt there was no need to render the lower court's decision null and void.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Langsa Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), but also ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant the following in maintenance: IDR 5 million (iddah - 100-day period after divorce has been granted); the monetary equivalent of two grams of gold (mut'ah); IDR 1 million (kiswah - clothing); and IDR 750,000 per month in child maintenance, until the parties' three children were of age and independent.

Overall, the Court agreed with the decision of the lower court. It did not, however, concur with the lower court's usage of the word 'menolak' (dismiss) in regards to the appellant's request that one-third of the respondent's salary be provided to the appellant as financial support, based on Government Regulation No. 10 of 1983 (amended by Government Regulation No. 45 of 1991), because those regulations relate to the discipline of civil servants, rather than marriage and divorce. Accordingly, the Court stated, such a claim should be declared 'tidak dapat diterima' (unacceptable).

The Court also increased the amount of maintenance payable by the respondent, as follows: IDR 5 million (iddah); the monetary equivalent of three grams of gold (mut'ah); IDR 2 million (kiswah); and IDR 750,000 per month in child maintenance, until the parties' three children were of age and independent.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), stipulated the joint assets of the parties to be distributed 50/50 between the parites, and ordered the respondent to pay the following maintenance: IDR 10 million (iddah - 100-day period after divorce has been granted, and kiswah - clothing); and half the value of the Isuzu Panther Pick Up vehicle (mut'ah - divorce compensation). The Court agreed with much of the decision of the lower court. It rejected the lower court's quantification of mut'ah, however, stating that mut'ah may not exceed the quantum of the appellant's claim, or be attached to any joint assets. The Court also stipulated that the following objects, subject of the parties' claims, were joint assets: 50 grams of gold, a fisherman dealer pump station in Peudada, a home built with joint money in Keutapang, and another home and land in Cinta Kasih, Pante Riek.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Bireuen Shari'a Court, which had dismissed its counterclaim in full, while stipulating the assets it determined to be jointly-owned by the parties.

The Court generally concurred with the judgment of the lower court. It did, however, make several minor amendments to the lower court's judgment, notably, granting the respondent's exception claim, and dismissing the appellant's counterclaim because of its general and unclear nature.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Takengon Shari'a Court (lower court), which provided an inventory of joint assets belonging to both parties, and stipulated that the assets be distributed on a 50/50 basis.

The Court concurred with the lower court, choosing only to amend the wording of the judgment slightly.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Idi Shari'a Court decision, which had dismissed its application in full.

The Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the appellant had not provided his lawyer with power of attorney, rendering his application signed by his lawyer null and void.

The appellant and his children (respondents) disputed the owernship and distribution of the estate of the deceased (wife/mother). The Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court) had stipulated the beneficiaries of the deceased's will as being the parties to the dispute, and distinguished between property that constituted the joint assets of the appellant and deceased, from property that was solely that of the deceased and therefore suitable to be distributed between the beneficiaries.

The lower court had granted half of the latter property to the appellant, and divided the remaining half into fifths between the respondents (the male respondent receiving two-fifths, while the female respondents received one-fifth).

On the whole, the Court accepted the judgment of the lower court. It found, however, that the lower court had erred in applying an Acehnese custom whereby the owner of a parcel of land and the builder of the shop and home complex on the land were to split the proceeds of any sale of the land and home/shop 50/50, because the builder had made no such request, and no such agreement was in place. The Court also criticised the haphazard nature of the lower court's decision, which made it difficult to decipher between the joint assets of the appellant and deceased, and other items/property. Accordingly, the Court provided a new decision to replace that of the lower court, attending to those deficiencies.

The appellant requested that the Court order the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court to conduct an additional examination before passing its final judgment. The Court allowed this, however, the respondent was still granted an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra). The parties' child was also ordered to remain in the care and custody of the respondent.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Takengon Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the lower court. Specifically, the Court also dismissed the appellant's objection to the respondent producing a family member as a witness in court, stating the respondent was within her rights to do so, per art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Lhokseumawe Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (thalak satu ba'in sughra). The Court, however, found no judicial error in the lower court's reasoning and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

The Court affirmed the decision of the Bireuen Shari'a Court to grant the appellant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), while ordering the appellant to pay to the respondent IDR 5 million in iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted) maintenance, as well as (at least) IDR 500,000 per month in child support until the parties' child reached 21 years of age. It also stipulated the assets that were jointly that of the parties, and ordered the appellant to transfer half of them to the respondent.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Sigli Shari'a Court (lower court), which had determined the parties' marriage in 1993 to be lawful, and granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The Court found a discrepancy between the lower court's report, particularly its final court report (hearing XIV), and the judgment. The report stated that the appellant was absent from court at the time the decision was handed down, while the judgment itself stated that both parties were in attendance. If the appellant had been present at the time of judgment, his appeal application would be invalid due to late submission (20 days after judgment had been handed down).

The Court held that, in the case of such a discrepancy, the court report prevails because it is inseparable from the decision itself. The Court also found, however, that the decision of the lower court was sound and met all legal requirements. Accordingly, while it accepted the appellant's application to appeal, it upheld the lower court's ruling to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The Court, however, dismissed the appeal, citing witness evidence that the parties' regular quarrelling had resulted in them separating for approximately eight months, thereby invoking art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The Court also referenced the lower court judge's unsuccessful attempts to counsel the parties to reconcile.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Takengon Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, however, noting that the parties had already undergone court-appointed mediation to no avail.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra), placed the parties' child in the respondent's care, and ordered the appellant to pay child maintenance to cover the child's living and educational expenses until the child became of age.

The Court, in large part, concurred with the lower court. In regards to child maintenance, however, notwithstanding that the Court agreed it was the appellant's obligation to provide for the child as the child's father, the Court also acknowledged that the respondent had withdrawn her claim for child maintenance before the lower court. Accordingly, it held that the appellant need not pay child maintenance.