SHARIAsource

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 11 April 2006 and had two children. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. By 2011, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. would become excessively suspicious that the applicant was having an extra-marital affair; and
2. never respected the applicant as her husband.

In December 2013, the parties separated and had remained that way for approximately 15 months. The applicant requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

In response to the applicant's submissions, the respondent submitted that her suspicions were not unwarranted as the applicant had indeed secretly married (nikah siri) another woman, who was the reason the parties had remained separated since December 2013. Furthermore, the respondent submitted that the applicant would often look for a reason to become angry with her, even in front of their children. While the respondent concurred with the applicant that the parties were no longer compatible, she conceded that if the applicant were to divorce his other wife, she would welcome him back. If, however, the applicant refused to do so, the respondent sought an order granting her custody of the parties' children, requiring the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 500,000 per month in child maintenance, as well as IDR 2 million for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), as well as whatever the applicant believed appropriate to pay in mut'ah (divorce compensation).

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, granting him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The applicant also agreed to the respondent's request, and provided her with a Seiko watch as mut'ah.

The parties were married on 8 January 2006 and had three children. Before moving to their own home, they had first lived with the respondent's parents for three months, and then the applicant's parents for six months. The applicant submitted that, by July 2006, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the parties once quarrelled because the applicant left the matrimonial home to attend a wedding because the bride and groom had hired his soundsystem;
2. in 2007, the parties quarrelled because the applicant had left for Kupang to be with his parents who were farewelling the applicant's sibling who was returning home to Java - the respondent objected to the applicant doing so, even becoming angry with the applicant and his parents;
3. in 2008, the parties quarrelled again when the applicant opened an internet cafe in Atambua, which resulted in the applicant often not returning home until the evening, the respondent becoming angry with the applicant, directing profanities at the applicant and even threatening to stab him with a knife;
4. at the end of 2008, the respondent would often conduct herself in an impolite manner, failing to show any appreciation for the applicant as her husband, even being impolite towards the applicant's parents; and
5. in October 2012, when the applicant wanted to leave for Betun to mourn the loss of a friend, the applicant had objected.

As a result, the parties had been separated since October 2012, the applicant living in Atambua, while the respondent had been living in Halilulik. The applicant submitted that it was no longer feasible for the parties to create a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) domestic life and, therefore, sought a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The respondent rejected all of the applicant's submissions, submitting that the marriage could be salvaged, and that the court should dismiss the applicant's request for a divorce.

The court acknowledged that the parties' evidence conflicted. It also noted, however, that the applicant had already failed, on two occasions, to produce two witnesses to attest to his submissions. Therefore, citing Kitab Al Muhadzdzab Juz II, page 320, the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence meant his request had to be dismissed.

The parties were married on 8 March 1999, after which they lived in a rental property for three years, before moving to their own home. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had been happily married for 13 years and had two children. By December 2009, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome after the defendant had had an extra-marital affair with a woman named Ega from West Java. The plaintiff submitted that she had learned about the affair from a work colleage of the defendant, and after conducting her own investigations, had confirmed what she had been told. By December 2011, the parties had begun to quarrel again after the defendant had had another extra-marital affair, this time with a woman named Yuli from Biudukfoho (the parties' maid). On 29 March 2012, the parties quarrelled yet again after the defendant received a phone call and SMS around 11:30pm from another woman. When the plaintiff inquired with the defendant as to who the woman was, the defendant told the plaintiff she was a caregiver at an orphanage in Kupang, which the defendant had coincidentally frequented.

As a result of the defendant's conduct, the parties had been separated since 30 March 2012. The plaintiff requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) in order to bring this unfortunate set of circumstances to an end. The plaintiff also sought IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance from the defendant, whose salary was IDR 3.5 million per month.

The court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. It acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The plaintiff later withdrew her claim for child maintenance payments, but the Court did grant her custody of the parties' two children.

The parties were married on 6 April 1980 and had two children. The applicant submitted that the parties had been happily married for 30 years. By June 2011, however, the marriage had become quarrelsome after the respondent had had an extra-marital affair with another man, whose identity the respondent had kept concealed from the applicant. The applicant also submitted that the respondent would return home in the middle of the night, flout or ignore the applicant's advice, become angry with the applicant, use profane language with the applicant, and had even requested that the applicant divorce her as quickly as possible before a religious court. As a result, the parties had been sleeping in separate beds since 18 February 2012. The applicant submitted that the information with which he had provided the court was sufficient to be granted a divorce (talak satu raj'i), pursuant to art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The court acceded to the applicant's request, granting him a revocable divorce 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 9 December 1996 and had five children. They had lived with the plaintiff's parents for one month, before moving around Bukittinggi and Riau for approximately eight years, finally settling in Agam. The plaintiff submitted that, by the beginning of 2004, the marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. rather than providing for his family, would frequently preach with Jamaah Tabligh, incurring many debts along the way, forcing the plaintiff to have to work as a street vendor to make ends meet; and
2. had failed to care for and protect the plaintiff as his wife, showing little interest in any concerns she might have.

Problems escalated in August 2015 when the defendant fell from his motorcycle. When the plaintiff inquired with the defendant as to the cause of his fall, the defendant responded that he had been having negative thoughts about the plaintiff, which had caused him to fall. The plaintiff responded by saying that she could no longer live like this. The defendant's refusal to apologise left the plaintiff feeling offended. When the defendant then prepared a document stating that he divorced the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed for divorce with the court.

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 court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage no longer represented a joyful and everlasting union, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) family, as envisaged art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 16 August 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted, however, that the marriage had only been harmonious for six months until March 2013, after which time the defendant had:

1. failed to provide for his family, causing the plaintiff to have to work in order to meet their daily domestic needs;
2. failed to show appropriate care and consideration for the plaintiff and their child;
3. had an extra-marital affair, which the plaintiff had learned about from reading a text message sent to the defendant's mobile phone; and
4. been dishonest regarding his finances, crying poor when the plaintiff requested money to purchase groceries, but always having enough money to drink at roadside stalls (warung).

Problems escalated at the end of April 2015 when the defendant refused to provide the plaintiff with extra shopping money. When the plaintiff inquired as to where the defendant stored his money, and the defendant refused to answer, the plaintiff told the defendant to leave the matrimonial home. The parties had remained separated since.

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 court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage no longer represented a joyful and everlasting union, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) family, as envisaged art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, as well as Surah ar-Rum, verse 21 from the Qur'an.

The parties were married on 9 January 2015, after which they had lived with the respondent's parents in Agam. The applicant submitted that two months after the parties were married, however, they had started to quarrel frequently because the respondent:

1. had unnecessarily accused the applicant of carrying on a relationship with his ex-girlfriend; and
2. would frequently direct profane language at the applicant, failing to respect him as her husband, ostensibly because the applicant had sold a car gifted to him by his parents prior to marrying the respondent, without providing the respondent with any of the financial proceeds of the sale.

Problems escalated on 14 May 2015 when the applicant was in Padang for work. The applicant sent the respondent a text message informing her that he would be home late due to work. While the respondent was initially accepting of this, later that evening she texted the applicant, asking why he had not yet returned home, ordering him to do so, as well as requesting that the applicant divorce her. The parties had subsequently been separated for the past four months. Accordingly, the applicant requested that the court permit him to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

The court acceded to the applicant'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 3 September 2004 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that, on 28 March 2014, the defendant accompanied the plaintiff to Medan for medical treatment. The next day the defendant returned home, leaving the plaintiff at her elder sibling's home. Initially, the parties had remained in contact. After two months, however, the plaintiff telephoned the defendant asking why he had not inquired as to how she was, and why he had not sent her any money. When the plaintiff pushed the issue, it became apparent that the defendant had intended to divorce the plaintiff.

On 4 September 2014, the defendant telephoned the plaintiff, asking her to take him to his parents' home. The plaintiff was unsure, however, for how long the defendant had been living with his parents. When the plaintiff and her parents attended the defendant's parents' home to bring him back to the parties' home, the defendant orally divorced (talak) the plaintiff. Since then the parties' communication had ceased. Moreover, the parties had lived separately since 28 March 2014, and the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. Therefore, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had contravened his marriage vows (sighat taklik talak), per the parties' marriage book (buku nikah), entitling her to divorce the defendant for a fee (iwadh).

Seeking to be exempted from any court fees, the plaintiff also submitted that she was an impecunious person, financially responsible for two children, receiving government-funded health benefits, and the holder of a social security card.

Pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i), as well as exempting her from all court fees.

The parties were married on 2 April 2015, after which they lived with the respondent's parents in Agam for approximately one week, before moving to a rental property. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for a mere 10 days before the respondent frequently became angry with the applicant for coming home late from work.

Problems escalated at the end of June 2015 when the respondent accused the applicant's child of groping the applicant's genitals while the applicant was sleeping. The applicant refused to believe the respondent's accusation, while the applicant's child similarly denied it. The respondent, however, remained steadfast in her accusation leading to the parties arguing and, the following day, the applicant took the respondent to her parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the next two months. Familial intervention had failed to reunite the parties, and the applicant sought the court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

As a counterclaim, the respondent sought IDR 2.5 million to cover her expenses for the two-month period the parties had been separated leading up to the proceeding. Furthermore, for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), the respondent sought IDR 3 million, and for mut'ah (divorce compensation) 2.5 grams (1 mas) of 24-carat gold. The applicant submitted that he could only afford the following:

1. IDR 600,000 for the two months the parties were separated;
2. IDR 500,000 for iddah; and
3. one 24-carat gold ring with a weight of 0.625 grams (one-quarter of a mas).

The court acceded to the applicant's 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. With regards to the respondent's counterclaim, the court ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent the following:

1. IDR 600,000 for the two months the parties were separated;
2. IDR 900,000 for iddah; and
3. one 24-carat gold ring with a weight of 1.25 grams (one-half of a mas).

The parties were married on 25 April 1997 and had two children. After marrying they had lived with the respondent's parents in Agam. The applicant submitted that, since the end of 2006, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent would go out drinking with her friends while the applicant was at work, and when the applicant confronted the respondent after seeing her drinking alcohol in a cafe, the respondent had denied any wrongdoing. Problems escalated at the end of 2008 when the applicant advised that the respondent not increase any of her debts. The respondent became angry with the applicant, forbidding him from interfering in her life. As a result, the applicant left the matrimonial home and returned to his parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the past seven years. The parties' families had not sought to make the parties reconcile, and the applicant submitted to the court that divorce (talak satu raj'i) was the only feasible option.

In her counterclaim, the respondent sought from the applicant IDR 2.5 million per month to cover costs associated with the parties' two children. The applicant submitted that he could only afford IDR 500,000 per month as his daily salary as a construction worker was only IDR 80,000.

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. It also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 1 million in child maintenance.

The parties were married on 26 May 2000 and had three children. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until June 2012, after which time it had become quarrelsome because the respondent had had an extra-marital affair. The applicant learned of the affair after noticing the respondent telephoning the other man from various places such as the parties' bedroom, the bathroom, and kitchen, sometimes in the middle of the night. The applicant also submitted that the respondent would wait until the applicant was asleep before calling the other man, and would even take their son Iqbal with her when she would meet him.

Problems escalated in August 2012 when the respondent forbade the respondent from seeing or telephoning this other man. The respondent maintained that he was merely a friend and became angry with the applicant. The applicant then left the matrimonial home and moved to his parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the three years leading up to the proceeding. Familial intervention had failed to make the parties reconcile, and the applicant sought the court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

The respondent's counterclaim included requests for:

1. IDR 25 million to cover her expenses for the four-year period the parties were separated;
2. IDR 3 million for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted);
3. a prayer (sholat) instrument as mut'ah (divorce compensation); and
4. IDR 3 million per month for child maintenance.

The applicant, in response, offered:

1. two motorcycles for the four-year period the parties were separated, as these were acquired during the parties' marriage;
2. IDR 1.5 million for iddah;
3. a prayer instrument as mut'ah, as requested; and
4. IDR 2.4 million per month for child maintenance.

The court acceded to the applicant's 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. With regards to the respondent's counterclaim, the court, noting that the applicant's average monthly wage was IDR 5 million, ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent the following:

1. IDR 15 million for the four-year period;
2. IDR 3 million for iddah;
3. a prayer instrument; and
4. IDR 3 million per month in child maintenance.

The parties were married on 12 January 2001 and had one child. The applicant submitted that, by the beginning of 2014, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent had:

1. undervalued the applicant as her husband by, for example, not being at home when the applicant would return home for lunch, without first requesting the applicant's permission, and becoming angry when the applicant would confront the respondent about this; and
2. undervalued the applicant's family, frequently refusing to meet members of the applicant's family when they would visit.

Problems escalated at the end of 2014 when the respondent, for no apparent reason, refused to lend the applicant money to assist with his sale of daily items, despite the fact that the applicant had helped the respondent purchase bananas to be taken to market for sale. After the ensuing argument, the applicant left the respondent for his parents' home, where he had remained for the eight months leading up to the proceeding. The applicant had, however, continued to provide financial support for the parties' child. The applicant, accordingly, sought the court's permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent.

Other than refuting many of the applicant's submissions, the respondent also counterclaimed for the following:

1. IDR 4.5 million for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted);
2. a prayer (shalat) instrument as mut'ah (divorce compensation); and
3. IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance.

The applicant, in response, claimed he could only afford the following:

1. IDR 500,000 for iddah;
2. a prayer instrument as mut'ah; and
3. IDR 1.5 million in child maintenance.

The court acceded to the applicant's 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. With regards to the respondent's counterclaim, the court ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent the following:

1. IDR 2 million for iddah;
2. a prayer instrument as mut'ah; and
3. IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance.

The parties were married on 8 July 2004 and had one child. They had lived with the applicant's parents for three years, before moving to a house behind a mobile phone sales counter. The applicant submitted that, by 8 September 2009, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent had left him for another man by the name of Randi. This had caused the applicant to suffer emotionally. Since 8 September 2009 until the time of the proceeding (four years and seven months), the parties had been separated. Accordingly, the applicant sought the court's permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent.

Despite the respondent's absence from court, 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 applicant's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two years.

The parties were married on 28 July 1988 and had four children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until September 2006, after which time the defendant had married another woman, unbeknownst to the plaintiff. Since June 2010, when the defendant left the plaintiff to be exclusively with his other wife, the parties had not been in contact. The plaintiff submitted that the past two years and 10 months leading up to the proceeding had caused her great emotional suffering, and that she no longer held onto hope that the parties would reunite. Accordingly, she 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 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 21 March 2011 and had one child. They had, at times, lived with both the applicant's parents and the respondent's parents. By January 2012, however, the applicant submitted that the marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent:

1. would ignore the applicant's advice;
2. refused to carry out her spousal obligations;
3. would want to return her to parents' home if she became angry; and
4. had been dishonest with the applicant.

Problems escalated in August 2012 when the respondent forbade the applicant from visiting his family who were mourning the loss of a family member. Despite efforts from both parties' families and the applicant to counsel the respondent about her conduct, the respondent refused to listen, instead leaving the applicant, returning to her parents' home, without the applicant's permission. The parties had remained separated for the nine months leading up to the proceeding, which had caused the applicant great emotional suffering. The applicant sought the court's permission to divorce the respondent, submitting that there was no hope of the parties reuniting (talak satu raj'i).

Despite the respondent's absence from court, 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 parties were married on 7 November 2007, after which time they had lived with the defendant's parents for five years. The parties had two children. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By 2010, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. would direct profane language at the plaintiff; and
2. would frequently become emotional.

On 20 November 2012, the defendant filed for divorce with the Parepare Religious Court before subsequently withdrawing his application. Despite withdrawing the application, it had already made the plaintiff relocate to her parents' home, where she had remained for the four months leading up to the proceeding. The plaintiff submitted that she could not see herself reuniting with the defendant and, accordingly, 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, 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 24 August 2008 and had one child. They had lived with the respondent's parents for the first six months of their marriage, after which they separated, the applicant moving back to his own parents' home. The applicant submitted that the marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the respondent's family would frequently criticise the applicant, calling him impotent;
2. the respondent would frequently communicate with her ex-boyfriends, despite the applicant asking her not to do so; and
3. the respondent would often go out at night for no apparent need, and if the applicant advised her against doing so, the respondent and her family would become angry with the applicant, the respondent even once leaving the applicant for five months, without first informing the applicant.

In February 2009, feeling undervalued and as though he could no longer cope, the applicant left the respondent. The parties had remained separated for the four years and two months leading up to the proceeding, which had caused the applicant great emotional suffering. Familial intervention had failed to make the parties reconcile, and the applicant was resigned to the fact that the marriage could not be salvaged. Accordingly, he sought the court's permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent.

Despite the respondent's absence from court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds that the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years.

The parties were married on 18 March 2010 and had one child. They had lived with the plaintiff's parents for one year and six months, but by June 2011 the marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant would direct profane language at her, even frequently requesting a divorce. In August 2011, the defendant left the plaintiff without first informing her, and never returned. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had consequently been separated for one year and eight months, which had caused her great emotional suffering. Resigned to the fact that the parties' marriage could not be saved, the plaintiff 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, 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 7 April 1990 and had four children. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had been harmonious until August 2008, after which time it had become quarrelsome because the defendant had:

1. developed a gambling addiction;
2. never provided the plaintiff with financial support;
3. developed an addition to alcohol; and
4. had an extra-marital affair.

On 11 March 2013, when the plaintiff learned of the defendant's extra-marital affair, she asked the defendant to leave their home. The parties had subsequently remained separated for the month leading up to the proceeding. Familial intervention had also failed to make the parties reconcile. The plaintiff, accordingly, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), and that, owing to her own impecuniosity, it exempt her from any court fees.

Despite the defendant's absence from 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, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the state to bear the plaintiff's costs.