SHARIAsource

The parties were married in 2013. By March 2014, however, their marriage had become quarrelsome and by August 2014 they had separated. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant:

1. had had an extra-marital affair with another woman;
2. often left the plaintiff for his parents' home;
3. did not provide the plaintiff with appropriate financial support; and
4. verbally abused the plaintiff.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the Court was satisfied that the plaintiff had established that the parties' marriage was adversely affected by ongoing conflict and acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra), 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 ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 316,000).

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 9 March 2010. On 2 January 2011, the respondent left the applicant without his permission or for any apparent reason, never to return. After conducting his own investigations, the applicant discovered, on 3 December 2013, that the respondent had been living with another man. Having suffered emotionally from the entire experience, the applicant requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

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 18 April 2006 and had one daughter aged 5. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome as of 2008, after the defendant had been sentenced to one year in prison. While in prison the plaintiff had been unable to provide the defendant with any financial or emotional support, and once released from prison, he had become agressive towards the plaintiff, frequently becoming intoxicated and physically beating her. The plaintiff submitted that whenever the parties would quarrel the defendant would verbally divorce her. Feeling the parties' marriage was irreparable, the plaintiff requested the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request 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 21 January 2005 and had lived at the applicant's home for a year (until January 2006). While they had already consummated their marriage, they had no children. The applicant submitted that, since July 2005, the marriage had been disharmonious, however, because the respondent found his salary as a labourer unsatisfactory. The respondent left the applicant in January 2006, returning to her childhood home. The parties then remained separated for the next eight years and nine months. The applicant, accordingly, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

After corroborating the applicant's submissions with evidence provided by the applicant's witnesses, the court acceded to his request, 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 between the parties.

The parties were married on 11 July 2011 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2014, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious due to financial problems. In order to avoid further conflict, the plaintiff moved to Hong Kong in September 2014 to take a job as a domestic worker. Since then the parties had remained separated and maintained little contact. The plaintiff's family had also counselled her to return to the defendant, but the plaintiff refused, feeling that the parties could no longer co-exist. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in 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 request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The applicant submitted that he and his wife were married on 18 April 1996 and had three children. When the applicant went to make the necessary arrangements for his third child's birth certificate, however, he encountered difficulties because his name on his marriage certificate differed from the name on his residence card, family card, and the birth certificate of his second child. In order to overcome this problem and have his third child's birth certificate issued, the applicant requested a court determination stating that he was the person in all the aforementioned official documents.

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds that changing one's name is appropriate provided such a request is made in good faith. In accordance with the applicant's request, the court also ordered the applicant to register his change of name with a marriage registrar at the Blitar Religious Affairs Office.

The applicant submitted that he and the respondent were married on 25 March 1976 and had five children. As the respondent had suffered a stroke in 2008, the applicant submitted that he intended to marry another woman. Moreover, that his IDR 3 million per month salary was sufficient to meet the needs of both his current and prospective wives, as well as his children.

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds that the applicant was financially capable of providing for his wife and children, pursuant to art 58(1)(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Furthermore, as provided by art 8(a)-(f) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as arts 39-44 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, there were no grounds to prohibit their marriage between the applicant and his prospective second wife.

The parties were married on 30 December 1993 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become disharmonious since the birth of their first child in 1994. Specifically, the defendant had:

1. been irresponsible towards his family; and
2. developed a mental illness.

The parties then separated in February 2015, the defendant returning to his parents' home and from then on failing to provide for the plaintiff and the parties' children financially. The plaintiff submitted that she believed the marriage was beyond repair and that an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) was her only option.

In dismissing the application, however, the court noted that while the plaintiff had produced a witness to corroborate her submissions, that witness' evidence had not been supported by other evidence.

The plaintiff submitted that the parties were married on 1 July 2010 and had one child. The plaintiff also submitted that after six months the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had carried on an extra-marital affair/clandestine marriage with another woman, having also impregnated the other woman;
2. had rarely provided the plaintiff with financial support; and
3. had physically assaulted the plaintiff when she confronted the defendant over his extra-marital affair.

On 16 September 2016, after learning about the defendant's extra-marital affair through a photograph on social media, the plaintiff left the parties' home to live with a family member.

While the plaintiff initially requested that the court grant her a divorce, she then requested that the court allow her to withdraw her application for divorce. The court acceded to the plaintiff's request.

The plaintiff submitted that, since January 2014, her marriage to the defendant had deteriorated. The parties subsequently separated in October 2014 and remained separated during the time leading up to the proceeding. The plaintiff maintained in her application for divorce that the parties' differences were irreconcilable.

As neither the plaintiff or defendant attended court, despite having been summonsed, the case was dismissed and costs were to be borne by the plaintiff.

The parties were married on 23 December 2006. For the first 10 months of the marriage they had lived with the defendant's parents, before moving to the plaintiff's parents' home. They also had one child, who was seven years of age at the time of the proceeding.

After moving in with the plaintiff's parents, however, the marriage had begun to deteriorate. This was a result of:

1. economic difficulties, leading to frequent quarrelling; and
2. the defendant discovering from the plaintiff's mobile phone that she had had an extra-marital affair.

Attempts on the part of the parties' families to make them reconcile had proven unsuccessful, and the parties had lived separately for the four months leading up to the proceeding, during which time their had been no physical intimacy between the parties, and the defendant had provided the plaintiff with no financial support. The plaintiff, believing that the marriage was beyond repair, sought a judicial divorce from the court.

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 acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 1 September 2006 before a local marriage registrar from the Office of Religious Affairs. Since October 2012, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide the plaintiff and their children with any financial support; and
2. would frequently declare that he divorced the plaintiff (pronounced talak).

Between October 2012 and the time the plaintiff filed an application for divorce, the plaintiff and the parties' two children had been living with the plaintiff's parents. During this time the defendant never visited or provided them with any financial support, forcing the plaintiff and their children to rely financially on the plaintiff's parents. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sugro), believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair.

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 an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) on the grounds of having been apart for longer than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Kutacane Shari'a Court to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra). The Court found that legislation requires a proceeding to be conducted in camera if it is dealing with both a marriage ratification and an irrevocable divorce, which, in this case, it was. As it was conducted in an open forum, however, the Court held the decision of the lower court must be overturned.

The appellant sought to challenge the ruling of the Langsa Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra). The Court dismissed the appeal insofar as it agreed with the decision of the lower court to grant an irrevocable divorce. It did, however, amend the decision to ensure that the court registrar send copies of the decision to the marriage registry.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Takengon Shari'a Court, which had found the appellant to be an unsuitable opponent.

The Court concurred with the decision of the lower court. It noted that marriage is not any ordinary agreement to live as husband and wife, but a holy agreement, which, if ended, may not be measured by the mistakes of one of the parties.

The parties were married on 2 June 2013 and lived together in the applicant’s parents’ home. They had no children. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By August 2014, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly, primarily because the respondent’s parents wanted the respondent to live in their own home and not at the applicants's parents' home. Problems escalated when the respondent left the applicant to live with her parents and the parties separated. The parties' differences were irreconcilable and the applicant requested that the court grant him permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj’i).

The court found that the marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, that the plaintiff’s reasons for the claim satisfied the requirements of art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and art 70(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary as amended by Law No. 3 of 2006 and Law No. 50 of 2009, and art 131(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court, therefore, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj’i) and ordered the applicant to pay all court costs (IDR 516,000).

The parties were married on 4 April 2011 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since November 2011, the parties' differences of opinion had affected their marriage. Moreover, the plaintiff submitted that:

1. the parties quarrelled on a regular basis;
2. the defendant had never provided the plaintiff with any financial support from the time of marriage;
3. the defendant did not work;
4. the parties had agreed to divorce before the East Jakarta Religious Court;
5. the parties had already been separated for two and a half years without providing each other any financial or emotional support;
6. the parties had failed to fulfil their spousal responsibilities via-a-vis one another;
7. the plaintiff had already endeavoured to resolve the parties' problems through deliberation and discussion with the defendant, but to no avail; and
8. the parties' problems were irreconcilable and that divorce was the most feasible option.

The defendant was summonsed to appear, but failed to do so. The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and arts 33 and 34 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, as well as on the grounds of the defendant's repudiation of arts 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage vows (sighat ta'lik thalak), pursuant to art 119 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 18 October 2012. They lived with the plaintiff’s parents' and did not have any children. Initially, their marriage was harmonious. By the beginning of 2014, however, they had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the matrimonial home was no longer harmonious because:

1. the defendant's spending on non-domestic needs had resulted in debts to a particular bank (one witness acknowledged that debt collectors would visit the parties' residence to collect), while he would borrow the plaintiff's car without her knowledge or permission; and
2. the defendant had failed to provide his family with appropriate financial support because he seldom worked, and failed to care for the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s family.

Problems escalated in 2014, resulting in the plaintiff evicting the defendant from her parents' home. The defendant never returned and provided the plaintiff with no financial support. The plaintiff’s attempts to reconcile with the defendant were in vain, as she did not know his whereabouts.

The plaintiff, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975 on Marriage, sought a divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court found that the purpose of marriage, being a happy and harmonious home life, was no longer feasible. Therefore, there were sufficient reasons, 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, to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The appellant successfully appealled against the decision of the Bireuen Shari'a Court (lower court), which had dismissed her divorce claim. The Court granted the appellant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), based on the grounds that the parties' marriage had broken down in 1993, which led to them separating on 23 April 2005. Moreover, efforts to reconcile the parties had been unsuccessful.