SHARIAsource

The cassation applicant had previously lodged an appeal in the Surabaya Religious Court for an order to stop his daughter (aged 17) marrying her boyfriend. The Surabaya Religious Court dismissed the cassation applicant’s appeal and ordered him to pay court costs (IDR 166,000). The cassation applicant then submitted a request for cassation on 7 March 2012, claiming that the Surabaya Religious Court had made an error in judgment. The cassation applicant claimed that his daughter was underage when she lodged applications to the local Office of Religious Affairs for dispensation to marry. He was primarily concerned with his daughter's application for Determination of Guardianship. The cassation applicant alleged that:

1. his daughter was only 16 years of age when she lodged the application for a Determination of Guardianship, despite stating that she was 17 years of age on the application;
2. the Court should have taken into account that his daughter, being under 18, should not have been allowed to lodge legal documents or appoint an attorney to lodge them on her behalf;
3. his daughter was not an adult and, therefore, her actions were not in accordance with art 47 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, which states that a child below 18 years and unmarried remains in the custody of their parents insofar as they have not been divested of parental power, and that parents shall represent their child in any legal conduct in and out of court, and art 50, which states that a child under the age of 18, unmarried and not, under the authority of their parents, shall be placed in the care of their guardian.

The Supreme Court found that the Surabaya Religious Court did not misapply the law, nor did it make a judgment contrary to the law. Accordingly, it dismissed the cassation applicant’s request, and ordered the cassation applicant to pay court costs in the amount of IDR 500,000.

The parties were married on 25 February 1998 and had their one and only child on 28 June 1998. In March 1999, the defendant left for Malaysia to work for two years, returning in March 2001, when he then lived at the plaintiff's parents' home for approximately three months. In June 2001, the plaintiff left to work in Taiwan and returned around December 2002. Then in June 2003, the defendant left for Malaysia for another two years to work, returning in June 2005, where he then lived with the plaintiff for approximately 10 months. In April 2006, the plaintiff left for Hong Kong to work for more than three years, returning on 14 November 2009.

Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. In June 2005, however, or since the defendant had returned from Malaysia, the parties had quarrelled regularly, largely because the defendant had only sent the plaintiff money on three occasions. Moreover, upon returning to Indonesia, the defendant refused to work, and the plaintiff could only find work as a waiter at a soto roadside stall (warung). To meet their domestic needs, in April 2006, the plaintiff returned to Hong Kong to work. During this time the defendant had begun to expect that the plaintiff would send money home on a monthly basis. When the plaintiff returned on 14 November 2009, she discovered that the defendant had sold her gold jewellery, as well as their Honda motorcycle. Moreover, the defendant forbade the plaintiff from seeking financial assistance from the defendant's parents, which caused the parties to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff was concerned that the defendant was not being entirely truthful with him. Feeling that their differences were irreconcilable, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce.

Pursuant to art 34(1) 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, as well as Kitab Fiqhus Sunnah Jilid II, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), and ordered her to adhere to 90 days of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted) before marrying again, pursuant to art 39(1)b of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 516,000).

The parties were married on 12 March 2011 and lived together in the cassation respondent’s parents’ home. They had three children (aged 12, 11 and 7). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious, but by 2003 it had become quarrelsome. The cassation respondent alleged that the cassation applicant would regularly beat and kick her leaving her bruised and swollen, sometimes in front of her parents. The parties eventually separated.

The cassation respondent had successfully requested that the Bireuen Shari'a Court (Decision: 11/Pdt.G/2013/MS-Bir) grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), claiming that the marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

On 17 December 2014, the cassation respondent successfully sought an affirmation of the decision from the Aceh Shari'a Court (Decision: 95/Pdt.G/2013/MS-Aceh).

On 28 January 2014, the cassation applicant lodged a request for cassation, claiming that the lower courts had incorrectly applied the law, that the evidence of the cassation respondent was inadequate, and that the court had not taken into consideration the facts of the case.

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation applicant’s claim, ruling in favour of the cassation respondent, and ordered the cassation applicant to pay court costs (IDR 500,000).

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.

The parties were married on 20 September 2000, after which they lived with the plaintiff's parents for four years and three months. The parties had two children. Initially the marriage was harmonious, however, by 2004 the parties had begun to quarrel frequently, culminating in the defendant leaving the plaintiff on 21 December 2004. At the date of the proceeding, the parties had been separated for five years, the defendant living with his parents. During those five years the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support or any other support in kind. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed that the defendant had breached figures 1, 2 and 3 of their wedding vows (ta'lik talak), and was prepared to pay an 'iwadl of IDR 1,000 for the defendant to grant her a divorce (talak satu khul'i).

In the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. Pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it granted the plaintiff a divorce on the grounds that the defendant had breached their wedding vows.

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 21 January 1994 and had four children (aged 19, 17, 12 and 7). Initially, their marriage was harmonious; however, by December 2010, it had become quarrelsome. The cassation respondent had claimed that:

1. the parties could not reconcile their differences;
2. the cassation applicant could not commit to Islam (despite having converted to Islam from Christianity to marry the cassation respondent, he then, in 2006, reverted to Christianity, only to convert to Islam again in 2011);
3. the cassation applicant had not provided her with financial support for the last three years.

Problems escalated and, in April 2011, the parties separated. The cassation applicant, in the first instance, requested the local religious court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in Shughro). In Decision 1048/Pdt.G/2013/PA.Kab.Kdr (18 September 2013), the lower court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, and ordered her to pay IDR 691,000 in court costs.

The cassation applicant then lodged an appeal with the Surabaya High Religious Court (3427/Pdt.G/2013/PT.Sby), which upheld the judgment of the Kediri Religious Court.

On 11 February 2014, the cassation applicant submitted a request for cassation to the Supreme Court based on the following grounds:

1. that the Surabaya High Religious Court had applied the law incorrectly, granting a divorce despite the cassation respondent's claim for divorce not being established with any legitimate evidence;
2. that the aforementioned evidence was inadequate because the marriage was actually stable and harmonious; and
3. that the cassation respondent's true motive for divorce was to be with her boyfriend, while the interests of the parties' children were not adequately considered by the court.

Pursuant to art 30 of Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, as amended by Law No. 5 of 2004 and Law No. 3 of 2009, the court upheld the decision of the Surabaya High Religious Court, dismissing the defendant’s reasons for cassation, and ordering him to pay court costs (IDR 500,000).

The parties were married on 18 November 2005 and had two children (born 2006 and 2007). The cassation respondent had submitted that the parties were not suitable from the beginning and that they had quarrelled regularly because:

1. the cassation applicant would often return home very late without reason, even during her pregnancy with the parties’ first child, a time when the cassation respondent most needed support from the cassation applicant;
2. the cassation applicant seldom provided financial support, and what he did provide was insignificant considering his salary as a member of council (anggota dewan);
3. when living with the cassation applicant in the cassation applicant’s parents’ home, the cassation respondent felt unsafe because she was often left alone with the cassation applicant’s brothers;
4. when the cassation respondent raised the issue of financially supporting the marriage, the cassation applicant would hit and verbally abuse her;
5. when the cassation respondent finally left the cassation applicant and lived with her parents, when she tried to return to live with the cassation applicant, the fighting would reoccur, with the cassation applicant often intoxicated;
6. the cassation applicant often slandered the cassation respondent’s family.

The physical abuse continued and, on 29 November 2008, the cassation applicant attended the cassation respondent's place of work, where he hit and kicked the cassation respondent, resulting in her being hospitalised with an injury and bruising to her leg. The level of abuse peaked on 24 October 2009, when the cassation applicant struck the cassation respondent in the head several times. Fearing for her welfare and that of the children, the cassation respondent locked herself and the parties' children in a bedroom and escaped out a window, fleeing for her parents’ home. The cassation respondent then attempted to file a report with the local police, but subsequently withdrew it because, as a member of council (anggota dewan), he was a public figure. On 4 November 2009, the cassation respondent eventually attempted to file for divorce in the Semarang Religious Court. During the process, however, the cassation applicant made amends and declared his love for the cassation respondent. The cassation respondent subsequently withdrew her application and the parties attempted to reconcile. On 23 April 2011, the parties had an argument and the cassation applicant declared that he wanted to divorce the cassation respondent and focus on his career in public office. The cassation respondent returned to the cassation respondent’s parents’ home but the divorce was not properly concluded. On 24 November 2011, the cassation applicant was arrested by the Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi) and reported in the mass media. The cassation respondent alleged that the cassation applicant's conduct had caused her and their children psychological damage and distress, and that the marriage was no longer tenable.

The cassation respondent, in the first instance, had requested that the local religious court terminate the marriage and grant her custody of the children, as well as to order the cassation applicant to pay court costs. The lower court (830/Pdt.G/2012/PA.Smg), pursuant to art 39(f) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the cassation respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, and custody over the children with visiting rights to the cassation applicant. The lower court, however, ordered the cassation respondent to pay court costs (IDR 491,000).

The cassation applicant lodged an appeal with the Semarang High Religious Court. The Semarang High Religious Court (091/Pdt.G/2013/PTA.Smg) upheld the lower court's judgment and ordered the cassation applicant to pay court costs (IDR 150,000).

On 2 January 2014, the cassation applicant submitted a request for cassation to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Semarang High Religious Court had not applied the law properly, that there were inadequacies and contradictions in the witness statements, that the cassation respondent was having an extra-marital affair with another man, that the children needed a father figure, and that it was his responsibility to be head of the household. The cassation applicant also submitted to the court that he was concerned the cassation respondent was not fit to have custody of the children.

Pursuant to art 30 of Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, as amended by Law No. 5 of 2004 and Law No. 3 of 2009, the court upheld the decision of the Semarang High Religious Court, dismissed the cassation applicant’s reasons for cassation, and ordered him to pay court costs (IDR 500,000).

The parties were married on 14 August 1987 and had two children (born 1988 and 1990). Initially, the marriage was harmonious, but, on 2 October 1995, the cassation applicant filed for divorce in the Surabaya Religious Court (lower court) (950/Pdt. G/1995/PA. Sby). During the divorce proceedings, on 18 and 23 September 1996, the cassation respondent reported the cassation applicant to the police for domestic abuse. During the proceeding, the cassation respondent successfully requested the lower court's permission for herself and the parties' children to live separately from the cassation applicant.

On 15 October 1996, the lower court dismissed the cassation applicant's request for a divorce, citing the interests of the parties' young children as its primary reason. This decision was later upheld by the East Java High Religious Court (No. 189/Pdt.G/1996/PTA.Sby), as well as the Indonesian Supreme Court (No. 157 K/AG/1998) on 5 February 1999.

While the parties remained under one roof, pursuant to court orders, they had not communciated nor been physically intimate with one another for 17 years. After the cassation applicant refused to act as his daughter's marriage guardian, the cassation respondent asserted that the family could no longer depend on the cassation applicant as a husband or father, and requested that the Surabaya Religious Court (lower court) grant her a divorce. The lower court (No. 355/Pdt.G/2012/PA.Sby), on 5 June 2013, granted the cassation respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) and ordered her to pay court costs (IDR 316,000).

The cassation applicant lodged an appeal in the Surabaya High Religious Court. The Surabaya High Religious Court (No. 304/Pdt.G/2013/PTA.Sby), on 29 October 2013, upheld the decision of the lower court, in favour of the cassation respondent.

On 19 December 2013, the cassation applicant submitted a cassation application to the Indoneisan Supreme Court, submitting that the decision of the lower court should be overturned because:

1. The cassation respondent had failed to fulfil the formalities required for the trial, and that the lower court should not have accepted the cassation respondent’s submissions if they did not satisfy the formal requirements;
2. The cassation respondent, as a civil servant, had failed to obtain permission from her superior officer to file for a divorce, pursuant to Indonesian Government Regulation No. 10 of 1983 on Permission to Marry and Divorce for Civil Servants, in conjunction with Indonesian Government Regulation No. 45 of 1990.

The Supreme Court held that these matters were non-justiciable at cassation level, found that the Surabaya High Religious Court had not erred at law, and dismissed the cassation applicant's reasons for cassation, ordering him to pay court costs (IDR 500,000).

The parties were married on 30 January 2011 and had one child (born 28 September 2013). By March 2013, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant:

1. often gambled and consumed alcohol;
2. hit the plaintiff every time he came home intoxicated;
3. inadequately provided for the plaintiff; and
4. did not provide the plaintiff with religious guidance.

Problems escalated in October 2014 when the plaintiff discovered the defendant was having an extra-marital affair with another woman. The parties then separated and ceased communication, and the plaintiff filed for divorce.

The court found that the marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as stipulated in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, the court, pursuant to art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in shugra), as contemplated by art 119(2)(c) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 19 June 1992 and had three children (aged 21, 18 and 10). The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had:

1. frequently physically abused her;
2. did not take care of the plaintiff; and
3. had married another woman without the plaintiff’s approval or knowledge.

In September 2013, the defendant left the plaintiff moving the plaintiff to file for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra). While the defendant attended the first hearing, he failed to attend the subsequent hearing, despite being officially summonsed. The parties, pursuant to art 130 of Herziene Inlandsch Reglement, in conjunction with art 82 of Law No. 7 of 1989, as amended by Law No. 3 of 2006 and Law No. 50 of 2009 on Religious Courts, attended court-sanctioned mediation but failed to reconcile their differences. The defendant then agreed to the divorce but objected to the plaintiff's claim that he had physically abused the plaintiff.

The court found that the parties' marriage no longer fulfilled the purpose of marriage, as stipulated in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 341,000).

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 on 19 June 2013. The plaintiff submitted that, prior to their marriage, the parties knew little about each other and that the marriage was arranged by their parents. The parties never consummated their marriage and, on 25 June 2014, the defendant left the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra).

The court found that the parties' marriage could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage, as stipulated in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, 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 granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in shugra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, and ordered her to pay court costs (IDR 391,000).

The parties were married on 5 December 2010 and had one child (born 21 January 2012). The plaintiff submitted that, in October 2011, the defendant had left the plaintiff to find employment and never returned, providing the plaintiff with no subsequent information as to his whereabouts. The plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce for a fee (talak satu khul’i). The court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce, pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds that the defendant had breached figures 1, 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage vows. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay divorce compensation (IDR 10,000) and court costs (IDR 346,000).

The parties were married on 6 August 1998 and had one child (aged 13). The plaintiff submitted that, in March 2013, the defendant had left the plaintiff with no warning and had never returned, providing the plaintiff with no information as to his whereabouts. Left with no financial support from the defendant, the plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The defendant did not attend court despite being summonsed. The court, pursuant to art 39 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, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. Moreover, the court held that the parties' marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with arts 2 and 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 241,000).

The parties were married on 13 June 2013. Initially, they lived with the plaintiff's parents for a week before moving to their own bunkhouse for a month. The plaintiff then left in August 2013. The plaintiff submitted that, since June 2013, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious due to:

1. the defendant's dishonesty with regard to work and household finances;
2. the defendant's disinterest in the plaintiff's advice; and
3. the defendant stating he would prefer to live with his older sister than stay with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff maintained that an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shugra) was the only option after both parties' families had unsuccessfully sought to make them reconcile. The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws concurred, granting the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 2 December 1971 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had remained happily married for 29 years until 1998, when it became apparent that the defendant had married three other women, unbeknownst to the plaintiff. In 2000, when the defendant returned home to the plaintiff, the plaintiff provided the defendant with an ultimatum: remain with his new wife or return to the plaintiff. The defendant informed the plaintiff that he had no intention of divorcing his other wife, and that if the plaintiff wished to divorce the defendant, he would not object. For the next 10 years, the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff or their children with any financial support, which, the plaintiff submitted, contravened art 34(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 80(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought from the defendant financial maintenance back payments for the past 10 years totalling IDR 180 million.

The plaintiff submitted that, on 18 October 2010, three persons attended the plaintiff's home to inform the plaintiff that the defendant intended to return to the home to renovate and reside on the second storey. Despite the parties' eldest child objecting to the defendant's return, the defendant insisted he was entitled to return to the home as he had built it himself, and that, furthermore, he was entitled to evict everyone living in it if he so chose. As the parties' marriage was no longer 'joyful and enduring', as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, the plaintiff sought a judicial divorce. She also sought to obtain her share of the parties' joint assets, namely the property in question.

The defendant disputed several of the plaintiff's submissions, namely that the defendant had married three other women, unbeknownst to the plaintiff. Rather, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff had provided him with money to annul his marriage to his second wife, that she had frequently invited the defendant to Gorontalo, that the parties had jointly applied for bank credit to increase the capital of their kiosk business, that the plaintiff and other persons had sought the defendant's permission to construct a mosque in front of the home, and that the parties' eldest child and her husband had visited the defendant and his second wife. The defendant conceded he had married for a third time, but only after he divorced his second wife, and that the third marriage only lasted a little under a year. The defendant also maintained that the plaintiff had never made any requests to him for money. Moreover, in 2000, his pension was a mere IDR 664,000 per month, while the plaintiff had ample funds from the parties' kiosk business, as well as from renting out several rooms in the parties' home to other persons.

With regard to the plaintiff being visited by three persons, the defendant maintained they had only done so to inform the plaintiff that the defendant wished to repair the parties' marriage. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff's assertion regarding art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage and the state of the parties' marriage was unfortunate given it did not consider the parties' ages, nor the consequences of divorce. Finally, the defendant requested that the court disregard the plaintiff's claims to the parties' property.

The court acknowledged witness evidence, provided pursuant to art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, that the parties had been separated since 2000, and that the defendant had only visited the parties' property in 2005 and 2009 when two of the parties' children married. Therefore, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as 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 ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court, however, dismissed the plaintiff's claim for financial maintenance back payments, acknowledging the defendant's appeal to the small amount his pension afforded him on a monthly basis. Pursuant to art 35(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, it declared the property a joint asset of the parties and ordered a 50/50 split. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 1,701,000).

The appellant sought to challenge Decision: 344/PDT.G/2010/PA.Kdi of the Kendari Religious Court (lower court) insofar as it had dismissed her claim against the respondent for financial maintenance back payments totalling IDR 180 million. The court, however, upheld the decision of the lower court, placing emphasis on witness evidence provided to the lower court that the appellant had received some income from renting out several rooms of the parties' house, as well as the parties' kiosk business. The court ordered the appellant to pay court costs (IDR 150,000).

The parties were married on 8 July 1999 and had two children. On 19 January 2010, the plaintiff filed an application for an irrevocable divorce. Then, on 4 May 2011, the parties reached an agreement, pursuant to which ownership of household items was granted to the plaintiff, ownership of the parties' property to the defendant, and custody of the parties' two children to the plaintiff. The court ordered the parties to adhere to the conditions of the agreement, and ordered both parties to share court costs (IDR 421,000).

The parties were married on 21 May 2002 and had two children. After first living with the defendant's parents, and then the defendant's older sibling, the plaintiff lived alone in a rental property from September 2003-January 2004, before returning with the defendant to live with the defendant's parents until June 2004. For the next three years the parties lived together in two separate rental properties until June 2007, when the defendant left the plaintiff, returning to his parents' home until March 2010. During that time, however, the defendant regularly returned to the parties' rental property. After March 2010 the defendant left the plaintiff, and the parties had remained separated up until the time of the proceeding.

The plaintiff claimed that the parties had lived harmoniously until mid-June 2003, after which they had begun to quarrel regularly. The defendant left in March 2010 as a result of:

1. the defendant's lack of care for the plaintiff, which had left the plaintiff feeling uncomfortable;
2. the defendant's parents meddling in the parties' domestic affairs;
3. the defendant slapping and verbally abusing the plaintiff when the parties would argue; and
4. the defendant accusing the plaintiff of having had an extra-marital affair, and therefore questioning the paternity of the parties' second child.

In the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra) 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 ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 406,000).