SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 10 February 2008. They lived together and had two children (aged 6 and 2). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By August 2014, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that:

1. the defendant would often not come home from work, providing no reason or explanation;
2. the defendant often pawned the parties’ household items, including her parents' car, providing no reason or explanation;
3. the defendant, since October 2014, had ceased to financially support the plaintiff;
4. the defendant had sold the title to the plaintiff’s parents' property solely for his own benefit; and
5. while the plaintiff had often financially supported the defendant in the hope he would change, he had not.

In January 2015, the plaintiff left the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the aforementioned circumstances had caused the marriage to deteriorate irreparably, and requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in shughra). The plaintiff also requested that the court grant her custody of the parties' child, and order the defendant to pay to her IDR 1,000,000 per month in child support.

While the plaintiff cooperated with the court, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding, despite having been summonsed. The court found that the marriage was irreparable and could no longer fulfil the purposes of art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and that the plaintiff’s claim satisfied the requirements of art 39(2) 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, in that the parties' differences were indeed irreconcilable. The court, however, did not consider the plaintiff’s claims for custody or child support because she subsequently withdrew that part of her claim. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay all court costs (IDR 316,000).

The parties were married on 14 February 2012. They lived together and had one child (aged 2). Initially, the marriage was harmonious. After six months, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that:

1. the defendant had had multiple extra-marital affairs;
2. when the parties quarrelled, the defendant would stop communicating, making the plaintiff angry;
3. the defendant would promise to change for the better but then break such promises and repeat his poor behaviour; and
4. the defendant would verbally abuse the plaintiff and threaten her with divorce when they would argue.

The parties separated and the plaintiff claimed that the circumstances caused the marriage to deteriorate irreparably, and requested that thecCourt grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in shughra).

The court found that the marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, that the plaintiff’s claim satisfied the requirements of art 39(2) 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, to enable the court to grant her a divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay all court costs (IDR 466,000).

The parties were married on 19 April 2013. They had lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ house and had one child (aged 7 months). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By November 2013, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant:

1. had not provided adequate financial support; and
2. was over-protective.

Problems escalated in August 2014 culminating in the defendant leaving the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the aforementioned circumstances had caused the marriage to deteriorate irreparably, and requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bai’in shughra).

The court found that the marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged at law, and that the plaintiff’s claim satisfied the requirements of art 39(2) 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. The court granted the plaintiff a divorce and ordered her to pay court costs (IDR 396,000).

The parties were married on 23 December 2007, after which they lived with the respondent's parents for approximately three years. The marriage had been harmonious for the first three months and the parties had their first and only child on 4 March 2008. Since September 2009, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The applicant submitted that this was due to the respondent:

1. never valuing the applicant as head of the household;
2. not being grateful for what the parties had, including the applicant's salary, which was not stable;
3. becoming jealous if the applicant were to return home late; and
4. when angry, often uttering obscenities that the applicant deeemed inappropriate.

As a result, the applicant left the matrimonial home on 23 September 2009, and had been living with his parents for the 11 months leading up to the proceeding. During those 11 months, the parties had not communicated, and the applicant claimed that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was no longer feasible. The applicant felt that his claim met the requirements of art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, for grounds for divorce.

In a written response, the respondent submitted that she also no longer wished to remain married to the applicant. Moreover, that she had told the applicant to leave her parents' home, that she had been working to support their child, that she did not feel that the applicant valued her as his wife, and that the applicant's temperament meant that she did not respect him as the head of their family.

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 applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds that the marriage was no longer tenable due to ongoing conflict.

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

The Court dismissed the appeal, while reminding the appellant that marriage was a holy agreement (miistaqan ghalidhan), not measurable by the mistakes made by either party. Moreover, that the state of the marriage was irreparable and that divorce was the best course for both parties to take.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Lhokseumawe Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (thalak satu ba'in sughra).

The Court recounted how the respondent had left the appellant, and how the appellant had married another woman unbeknownst to the respondent. This, the Court believed, had made their marriage untenable. For the purposes of art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, the Court believed the lower court had found sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), and granted the respondent custody of the parties' three children.

The Court dismissed the appeal.

The Lhoksukon Shari'a Court (lower court) had held four separate hearings, only the second of which had the respondent attended, despite having been summonsed to attend all four. The Court noted that the appellant's mother's testimony had established that the parties had quarrelled often and that their differences were irreconcilable. The respondent's conduct also suggested that he had intended to repudiate his own rights vis-a-vis procedural fairness. The Court, therefore, held that the appellant had established a legitimate reason to divorce the respondent, viz. ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

Accordingly, the Court overturned the decision of the lower court, granting the appellant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

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

The Court concurred with the decision of the lower court, but also noted the respondent's obligation to carry out iddah (100 day-period after which divorce has been granted), one of the purposes of which is istibra' (cleansing herself of her husband's seed). Based on art 41(c) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 149(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, istibra' requires the husband to provide his former wife with mut'ah (divorce compensation) during the period of iddah. In this instance, the Court ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent IDR 3 million in mut'ah.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Langsa Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), but granted custody of the parties' three children to the appellant, and ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant IDR 2.5 million per month in child maintenance until the children become of age. The lower court also stipulated the joint assets of the parties and ordered that they be split on a 50/50 basis.

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court, however, it found fault with the respondent's reasoning in regards to the return of a vehicle to its owner because the respondent could not afford the repayments after only paying IDR 7 million up front. The Court found that the IDR 7 million in question, which had been returned to the respondent, was a joint asset and should be split between the two parties.

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

The Court dismissed the appeal, concurring with the lower court that, based on the evidence produced before it, the parties had quarrelled from 2004-2007. It was even noted that the appellant had beaten the respondent, causing the parties to separate. The Court found that the preferred solution for the parties was to divorce.

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

The appellant strongly objected to the lower court's lack of sensitivity towards the fact that this case, he claimed, came under the jurisdiction of another shari'a court. The Court acknowledged the appellant's concern, noting that, pursuant to art 73(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989, amended by Law No. 3 of 2006, in conjunction with art 132(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the respondent had filed for divorce with the religious court in her new residential jurisdiction, despite the respondent having left the parties' place of residence without the appellant's permission, and relocating to Aceh Timur (East Aceh). As the evidence and reason relating to why the respondent had relocated was dubious, the Court found that the Idi Shari'a Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the hearing at first instance, appointing the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court as the appropriate forum instead.

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

The Court dismissed the appeal, however, finding no fault with the lower court's decision.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), as well as custody of the parties' son. The lower court also ordered the appellant to provide the respondent with monthly child maintenance to cover the child's living costs and school fees until the child was of age and independent.

The Court dismissed the appeal, only making minor amendments to the wording of the lower court's judgment.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), as well as custody of the parties' son. The lower court had also ordered the appellant to provide the respondent with monthly child maintenance to cover the child's living costs and school fees until the child was of age and independent.

The Court dismissed the appeal, only making minor amendments to the wording of the lower court's judgment.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Lhoksukon Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), as well as custody of the parties' two children.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the judgment of the lower court to be sound and accurate.

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

The Court acknowledged that the appellant had endeavoured to reconcile with the respondent. Citing the opinion of ulama in Kitab Iqna' Juz II, however, it noted that it was compelled to grant the respondent a divorce because the respondent was adamant that she and the appellant could not reconcile their differences. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

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

In dismissing the appeal, the Court affirmed that the parties had continuously quarrelled while married and that laying blame on one of the parties was futile given the objective of marriage, as enunciated in art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975. The Court acknowledged the appellant's efforts to reconcile with the respondent, especially as the parties had children, but also conceded that it could not act as the appellant's saviour (dewa penyelamat) and compel the respondent to reunite with the appellant.

T bin I had passed away in 1992 and had stipulated as his beneficiaries: S binti T (wife and fifth respondent); M bin T (son); F binti T (daughter); and Y binti T (daughter and respondent).

In 1993, F binti T passed away, stipulating as her beneficiaries: R bin A (husband); F bin A (son and second respondent); N binti A (daughter and third respondent); and N binti A (daughter and fifth respondent).

The Lhoksukon Shari'a Court (lower court) stipulated as T bin I's estate three parcels of land, and as the joint estate of T bin I and F binti T, several more parcels of land, as well as a shop with some land and a garden. The lower court stipulated that one-half of the joint estate was to be devised between T bin I's beneficiaires, and the other half between F binti T's beneficiaries. Moreover, that T bin I's estate was to be divided between his beneficiaries.

The Court found no fault with the judgment of the lower court and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Meulaboh Shari'a Court (lower court), which had only accepted his claim in part when it stipulated as joint assets of the parties one house with some land, as well as IDR 13.5 million in home restoration monies.

The Court dismissed the appeal, however, finding the lower court's decision to be sound and accurate.