SHARIAsource

This ministerial regulation makes provision for marriage guardians for prospective brides who do not have a marriage guardian who meets the requirements set out in Islamic law, that is, a blood relative Muslim man from their father's side. The regulation mandates that that marriage guardian is to be a ministerial-appointed Head of the Office of Religious Affairs Registrar.

The parties were married on 27 December 2012 and had their first and only child on 31 January 2013. Six months into their marriage, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the cause of the conflict was the defendant's lack of responsibility as a husband in terms of providing enough financially to meet the parties' daily needs. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant was unmotivated in his employment and that she had to assist to make ends meet. Furthermore, the defendant did not assist the plaintiff in looking after their child while the plaintiff was busy or cooking, and when the parties would argue, the defendant would often leave the matrimonial home, sometimes for up to two weeks at a time.

Problems escalated on 20 December 2013 when the defendant failed to provide enough to meet the parties' domestic needs, and the plaintiff was hesitant to seek assistance from her parents. When the plaintiff sought to discuss this with the defendant, the parties argued and the defendant then left the matrimonial home, unbeknownst to the plaintiff. The defendant never returned, nor did he contact the plaintiff or provide her with financial assistance to help rear their child.

The plaintiff sought to pay the necessary fee ('iwadh) for the court to grant her a divorce from the defendant (talak satu khul'i). The court noted that the defendant's failure to attend court had rendered mediation futile. It also noted that the defendant's conduct specifically repudiated their marriage as he had failed to provide the plaintiff with financial support, and failed to care for the plaintiff for more than six months (conduct envisaged by figures 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage contract). Accordingly, by virtue of art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the plaintiff was permitted to divorce the plaintiff for breach of their marriage vows by paying a fee ('iwadh) of IDR 10,000.

The plaintiff submitted that, in January 2011, the defendant left the plaintiff for one year and three months, without the plaintiff's permission. The plaintiff acknowledged that the parties had quarrelled regularly because the defendant did not want to work at the plaintiff's family's mechanic's garage.

The court acknowledged the defendant had failed to meet points 2 (failure to provide the plaintiff with financial support for a duration of three months) and 4 (no longer care for the plaintiff for a duration of six months) of the couple's marriage vows (shigat taklik thalak). Pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it granted the plaintiff a divorce granted in exchange for monetary compensation (thalak satu khul'i) for a IDR 10,000 dispensation fee (iwadh).

The parties were married on 6 June 1988, after which they lived with the plaintiff's parents and had three children. From December 2012, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant struggled to meet the family's financial needs. In January 2013 the parties separated and remained separated for the 11 months leading up to the divorce proceeding.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff had met the evidentiary burden contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it therefore acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 27 March 1984 and had three children. By January 2008, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was due to the defendant's inability to meet the family's financial needs, as well as the defendant having married another woman. Problems escalated in December 2011 resulting in the parties sleeping in separate beds. During this time the defendant, the plaintiff submitted, had failed to provide her with any financial or emotional support. Feeling the marriage was beyond repair, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra).

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 7 March 2011 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had deteriorated due to economic hardship, that being that the defendant had made no effort to obtain employment, was often intoxicated, and therefore unable to contribute financially to meet the parties' domestic needs. In 2013, the parties separated.

On 11 November 2014, the plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sugro) 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.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff’s request, granting an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughro), and ordering the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 401,000).

The applicant submitted that he and the respondent were married on 10 September 1992 and had three children. The parties' first child was born with a mental handicap. The respondent then gave birth to triplets but only two of the triplets survived. After giving birth to the triplets, the respondent was no longer able to conceive. Having had three sons, however, the applicant wished to have a daughter. After obtaining what the applicant submitted to the court was the respondent's consent in writing to his taking another wife, the applicant now sought the court's permission to do so.

The court dismissed the application, however, when the respondent submitted orally that she had never provided the aforementioned written consent. Accordingly, the court found that the applicant's request had failed to meet the necessary requirements contained in art 5(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 58(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

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).

At a meeting in Lucknow on February 5, 2023, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) passed a resolution opposing the Indian government’s proposed Uniform Civil Code. The Board noted that the proposed UCC was “neither relevant nor beneficial for a multi-religious, multi-cultural and multi-lingual country like India.” The Board further expressed concerns that the UCC would divide India along religious and cultural lines, and that it would erode safeguards around religious freedom and equality.

The applicant submitted that the parties were married on 20 July 2007 and had two children. For the first five years their marriage had been harmonious but, by the end of 2012, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. was unsatisfied with the applicant's monthly salary;
2. had forbade the applicant from meeting with his parents and relatives and providing them with money;
3. had frequently directed profanities at the applicant and would request a divorce whenever the parties would quarrel.

On 7 August 2016, when the applicant returned home at around 10.00pm, the respondent directed further profanities at the applicant. The applicant then left the parties' home and returned to his family's home. The parties had remained separated for approximately two months since. The applicant's advice to the respondent had failed to change her behaviour and attitude. Believing the purpose of marriage, that being a peaceful, hopeful and loving family, was no longer attainable, the applicant requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

In her oral response in court, the respondent concurred with the majority of the applicant's submissions. The respondent did not, however, concur with the applicant's submission that the respondent had forbade him from providing his parents with money. Rather, she had only said that his salary was insufficient to meet their own needs as it was. The respondent submitted that her family had attempted to make the parties reconcile but that the applicant and his family had failed to respond to their initial attempts. Furthermore, the respondent submitted that she did not want the applicant to divorce her. If the applicant's request for a divorce were successful, however, the respondent requested that the applicant pay her:

1. IDR 1.2 million per month for three months (IDR 3.6 million) in unpaid spousal maintenance for the time the parties had already been separated;
2. IDR 1 million per month for three months (IDR 3 million) for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted);
3. a gold ring as divorce compensation (mut'ah); and
4. IDR 600,000 per month in child maintenance for their two children until they were adults and independent.

In response, the applicant submitted that he could only afford:

1. IDR 3 million in unpaid spousal maintenance;
2. IDR 900,000 for iddah; and
3. no divorce compensation (mut'ah).

In dismissing the applicant's request, the court justified its decision on the grounds that the parties had already been physically intimate with one another.

This gubernatorial regulation makes provision for the Qur'anic literacy levels of primary school students (aged 6-12 years) in Riau province. It states that Qur'anic literacy studies are based on the Pancasila ('five principles' - Indonesian state ideology) and the 1945 Constitution (art 2), that they function to meet societal needs in terms of religious education (art 3), and that their purpose is to increase the Muslim primary students' belief in God (art 4).

The parties were married on 27 June 2007 and had one child. Since January 2010, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had struggled to meet the family's financial needs. The plaintiff also submitted that when the parties quarrelled the defendant would often beat her. Problems escalated in October 2010, resulting in the parties separating. For the next two years and six months, leading up to the divorce proceeding, the defendant failed to provide the plaintiff with any emotional or financial support.

Information provided by witnesses in court corroborated with that of the plaintiff, moving the court to accede to the plaintiff's request for a divorce. 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, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 21 July 1994 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2008, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly. The defendant's lack of desire to work, as well as his being suspicious of the plaintiff, who had no choice but to work to make ends meet, were all points of contention for the plaintiff.

Problems escalated on 4 September 2014, when the defendant, who was still yet to alter his attitude or behaviour, asked the plaintiff for money to purchase cigarettes. This caused the plaintiff to ask the defendant to leave. The parties had remained separated since.

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, acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) on the grounds that ongoing conflict between the parties was a legitimate reason for divorce.

The parties were married on 11 February 2007 and had their one and only child on 15 July 2008. By October 2011, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of:

1. the defendant having had an extra-marital affair;
2. the defendant's excessive jealousy and accusations towards the plaintiff that she had had an extra-marital affair herself;
3. the defendant's use of profane language which he would direct at the plaintiff; and
4. the defendant not providing enough financial support to meet daily domestic needs.

Problems escalated in mid-2012, causing the parties to separate. In her claim, the plaintiff submitted that the state of the parties' marriage meant that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer feasible. The court found that the information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions. It noted that it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce in the event mediation was unsuccessful. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, therefore, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the parties an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughro).

The plaintiffs submitted that, on 13 March 2008, the first plaintiff executed a murabahah financing agreement for IDR 275 million with the defendant. The plaintiffs leveraged a property and another plot of land, the deeds of title of which were both in the first plaintiff's name. Repayments pursuant to the agreement totalled IDR 635,937,500, with a monthly repayment obligation of IDR 3.5 million. The plaintiffs submitted that IDR 3.5 million fee per month caused them significant financial hardship: while their business was profitable they were able to make the necessary repayments, but when their business experienced some financial downturn, they instead made monthly repayments of IDR 2.5 million, pursuant to a new agreement.

The plaintiffs submitted that they had made the necessary repayments to meet their contractual obligations, but, without first consulting with them, the defendant sought to auction the first plaintiff's two properties on 18 July 2013. Moreover, that as the defendant would automatically debit the plaintiffs' account, to auction the properties was a contravention of the murabahah agreement and unlawful and should, therefore, render the auction invalid.

The court found that the plaintiffs had defaulted on the loan on three occasions and, therefore, could not be said to have held up their end of the bargain. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim and ordered them to pay costs (IDR 3,151,000).

The parties were married on 13 October 2014. They lived with the plaintiff's parents for nine months, the first seven of which, the plaintiff submitted, had been harmonious. Since May 2015, however, their marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant's wage was insufficient to provide for his family meaning that the parties would have to rely on the plaintiff's parents to meet their daily needs. Moreover, that the defendant refused to look for additional employment to supplement his income. In July 2015, after problems between the parties escalated, the defendant left the plaintiff to live with his own parents. The parties had remained separated for the six months leading up to the proceeding.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's application, acknowledging that the parties' marriage was beyond repair. Pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The applicants submitted an application for child adoption to the court stating that:

1. they were married on 3 January 2001;
2. they wished to adopt their neighbour's child, Muhammad Hashif Hasbullah;
3. they had already cared for the child since 10 January 2016;
4. their primary motivation for wanting to adopt the child was that the child was still their neighbour, and that they also wanted the child to maintain a connection with his mother;
5. the child's biological parents had already transferred temporary custody of the child to the applicants; and
6. their other motivation being that the child was their nephew.

The court cited art 39 of Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection, stating that:

1. child adoption can only be carried out if it serves the child's best interests, and meets local customs and norms and current legislative regulations;
2. child adoption does not sever the child's blood connection with its biological parents; and
3. the prospective adoptive parents must be of the same religion as the child.

The court also acknowledged that these legislative requirements accorded with the Qur'an, Surat An-Nisa', verse 144, and a fatwa issued by the Indonesian Council of Ulama (U-335/MUI/VI/1982).

The court acceded to the applicants' request, finding that the applicants had met the legislative requirements to adopt the child in question.

The parties were married on 21 May 2015. They had lived with the plaintiff's parents for the duration of their marriage. Despite having already consummated the marriage the parties had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, since June 2015, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. This was a result of the defendant:

1. not wanting to work to meet their financial needs, forcing the plaintiff to work; and
2. tricking the plaintiff into providing him with money to purchase a car in order to start up his own car rental business, only to then leave the plaintiff after she had provided him with money.

The parties had remained separated for the past seven months leading up to the proceeding.

Acknowledging that the parties' marriage was irreparable, for the purposes of art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the Court acceded to the plaintiff's request. Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 20 October 2013 and had one child. Since April 2014 the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. was unmotivated to seek employment;
2. rarely provided sufficient financial support to meet the parties' domestic needs;
3. frequently directed profane language at the plaintiff; and
4. would leave the parties' home when the parties would quarrel, often for a week at a time.

Problems escalated in July 2014 when the plaintiff sought to provide the defendant with advice on a matter. The defendant left the parties' home and did not return. The parties had consequently been separated for one year and seven months. Believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), as well as custody of the parties' child.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties. Furthermore, the court, pursuant to art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff custody of the parties' child given that the child was 1 year and 11 months old.

The parties were married on 28 July 2001 and had two children. At the beginning of their marriage, they had agreed to live in a home owned by the applicant in Bogor. When the respondent was seven-months pregnant with their first child, however, the parties agreed to move to the respondent's parents' home in Bekasi. Initially, when the parties would have a disagreement, the applicant thought it was fleeting and merely part and parcel of domestic life. The applicant preferred to concede defeat, rather than perpetuate further disagreement and quarrelling. Since their third year of marriage, however, the applicant submitted that the parties quarrelled regularly and were no longer compatible. The applicant submitted that this was due to:

1. a difference of opinion between the parties;
2. the respondent not being able to adopt the lifestyle of the applicant, as required in order for the applicant to earn a living;
3. the respondent not fulfilling the applicant's requests to meet his physical needs while their first child was between the age of 4-18 months;
4. the respondent not fulfilling the applicant's requests to meet his physical needs for 12 months after she was four-months pregnant with their second child;
5. after a while, the applicant himself no longer wanting to be physically intimate with the respondent because he no longer loved her;
6. the applicant having suggested to the respondent after the birth of their first child that they no longer live with the respondent's parents so that they could become more independent, and so that the applicant could feel more comfortable and free to do as he pleased without the respondent's parents present;
7. the applicant finally being able to convince the respondent that they should purchase their own home not too far from her parents' home; and
8. having their own home meant the applicant could invite family and relatives to their home whenever he chose.

The applicant conceded that as the parties' children were under the age of 12 (not yet mumayyiz), they should remain in the custody of the respondent, but that he would provide financial support for their schooling and living expenses. The applicant was also prepared to provide the respondent with IDR 6 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted) and IDR 1 million in mut'ah (divorce compensation). The applicant also specified as joint assets of the parties a house in Bekasi and a 2010 Proton Exora vehicle.

The respondent conceded many of the points of the applicant's claim, but submitted that the applicant had been duplicitous, by engaging commercial sex workers and other women for sex (zina), since 2003. The respondent also submitted that one month into her first pregnancy she had been ordered by her obstetrician to stay in bed for two weeks after she had experienced some bleeding associated with the pregnancy. This had caused her to want to avoid being physically intimate with the applicant, rather than any desire not to value her husband. At the time of giving birth to their first child, the respondent had also experienced trauma and further bleeding, which had continued to haunt her. When the respondent had begun to overcome this physical and psychological trauma, the applicant was no longer interested in being physically intimate with the respondent. Moreover, at the time, the respondent would never have guessed that the applicant was being duplicitous.

The court found that ongoing conflict between the parties satisfied the sufficient reason requirement to grant the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.