SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 10 July 2011. By March 2012, however, they had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was a result of:

1. the defendant having had an extra-marital affair, which the plaintiff had discovered through the defendant's mobile phone;
2. the defendant prioritising himself, rather than providing the plaintiff with enough attention, affection and physical intimacy;
3. the defendant's alcohol dependency; and
4. the defendant's bi-sexual tendencies.

In July 2013, the defendant had left the matrimonial home for no apparent reason, and, since then, had failed to provide the plaintiff with any information as to his whereabouts. The plaintiff's inquiries with the defendant's family and friends were to no avail as they knew nothing. The plaintiff alleged that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer attainable.

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 parties were married on 7 April 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2013, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly, primarily because:

1. the defendant would often become angry for no apparent reason; and
2. the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support since 2013, up until the date of the proceeding.

Problems escalated, and in November 2013, the defendant left the matrimonial home. The plaintiff submitted that an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) was the only feasible option remaining.

Despite being formally summonsed, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the defendant failed to attend court. Regardless, 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 plaintiff's application on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, being a joyful and enduring relationship, as well as art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible, and that the plaintiff had established sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce, as required under art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 65 of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary.

The parties were married on 22 March 1999 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that for the past three years, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly. Moreover, that the defendant often physically assaulted her, and that she had discovered that the defendant had had an extra-marital affair. When problems escalated between the parties, the defendant finally left the matrimonial home to live with his parents, where he had remained for the past three years. During that time the parties had not been physically intimate with one another. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 22 September 2008 but had no children. For the first three years of their marriage they had lived in their own home, before moving to live with the defendant's parents. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious, however, since August 2013, it had begun to deteriorate. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant:

1. was unhappy that the parties had not yet conceived a child; and
2. had had an extra-marital affair.

Problems escalated and, on 28 August 2013, the plaintiff moved to her parents' home after receiving a letter from the defendant stating that he divorced her. For the next one year and eight months, the plaintiff submitted that she had attempted to reconcile with the defendant, but to no avail. It followed that the plaintiff believed the only feasible option remaining was divorce, pursuant to art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's application, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, and Manhaj al-Thullab juz VI. Despite failing to attend the proceeding, the court acknowledged that the defendant had been summonsed officially, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 25 September 2011 and had one child, who was in the plaintiff's care. Initially, their marriage was harmonious, but after the birth of their child, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted this was because the defendant:

1. had not provided her with any financial support, rather, giving his entire income to his parents; and
2. was frequently emotionally and physically abusive towards the plaintiff, even over minor matters.

Problems escalated and, in April 2013, when the parties' child passed away, the defendant left the plaintiff for Kalimantan and cut all ties with her. As the defendant's whereabouts were unknown, nothing could be done by the parties' families to orchestrate a reunion. Accordingly, the plaintiff believed that divorce was the only feasible option available.

Based on the evidence before it, including that provided by witnesses, pursuant to 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 for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. In further support of its decision it cited surat ar-rum verse 21, Kitab al-Qawaid al-Fiqhiyyah li al-Syaikh Muhammad Halim al-Utsaimin, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, emphasising that the purpose of marriage had long ago been repudiated by the parties.

The parties were married on 14 February 2012. After marrying, they had lived with the plaintiff's parents for more than a year, before moving to a rental property, where they then lived for one month before separating and returning to their respective parents' homes. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had quarrelled regularly because:

1. the defendant was selfish and frequently angry for no apparent reason;
2. the defendant was aggressive and frequently hit the plaintiff;
3. the defendant frequently directed profane language at the plaintiff; and
4. the parties had already divorced three times.

Problems escalated in October 2013, resulting in the parties separating, where they had remained until the time of the proceeding. Familial efforts to reconcile the parties had proved to be only temporarily successful, and the plaintiff believed the parties' differences were irreconcilable.

Despite the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in shughra), acknowledging that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and surat Al-rum verse 21, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan warahmah) homelife was no longer feasible. Moreover, that, 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, ongoing conflict between the parties was sufficient reason to grant a divorce.

The parties were married on 24 August 2008 and had lived with the plaintiff's parents for one year and four months, before moving to a rental property in Takkalao for a year, before then living in their own home in Bojo for a month. The parties also had one child, who was, at the time of the proceeding, in the plaintiff's care. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious initially, but, by October 2008, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant had failed to sufficiently provide for the plaintiff and their child. In December 2010, the parties quarrelled when the plaintiff felt disrespected by the defendant's parents. Then, in January 2011, the plaintiff left the parties' home for her parents' home, feeling she could no longer cope with her treatment at the hands of the defendant and his parents. The parties had remained separated for the following one year and nine months, which had caused the plaintiff to suffer greatly, and to feel that divorce was the only feasible option remaining.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), citing art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, in its assessment that the parties' marriage was no longer happy and joyful, nor peaceful, hopeful and loving. The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, based its decision on the fact that the parties had been apart for two consecutive years and ongoing conflict respectively.

The parties were married on 17 July 2010, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents for one month, before the plaintiff followed the defendant to Soe in Nusa Tenggara for two years, and then to Belu in 2012, when the defendant was transferred to work for the Police there. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had been happily married for three and a half years but had no children. Since January 2014, however, the parties had frequently quarrelled because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair with a woman called Hasni from Fatubenao. As a result, the parties had been separated since 19 January 2014, and the plaintiff had suffered emotionally. She requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The Court found that, as one of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff had not known about the dire state of the parties' marriage, the plaintiff had only produced one witness. The plaintiff had circumvented this problem, however, by providing her own sworn statement that the parties' marriage was no longer everlasting and joyful, or peaceful, hoping and loving (sakinah, mawaddah wa rahmah), as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, respectively. Accordingly, the Court acceded to the plaintiff's request, finding that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence of ongoing conflict between the parties, as required 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 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 15 January 1998 and had one adopted child. They had also lived with the plaintiff's parents for approximately 20 years. Not long after they were married the parties began to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was because of the defendant's alcoholic tendencies, as well as the fact that she had to bear all financial responsibilities, including those associated with the parties' adopted child. Problems escalated in 2008 when the defendant forced the plaintiff's adopted child out of the plaintiff's parents' home, causing the plaintiff great emotional suffering. The defendant then left the plaintiff, the parties remaining separated up until the time of the proceeding. The plaintiff had subsequently searched Bau-Bau in an attempt to ascertain the defendant's whereabouts but had been unsuccessful. In 2008, the plaintiff also moved to Ambon to live with her aunt.

The plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) with the court. Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acknowledged that the parties' marriage was in an irreparable state and no longer constituted a joyful and everlasting domestic life, per art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life, per art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. 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, it acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

This fatwa states that there are two conflicting opinions regarding divorce (pronouncement of talak). The first is that the pronouncement of talak three times at once is akin to the third talak. This opinion was held by the Companions of the Prophet (Sahaba), the Tabi'in (the next generation), and imams of all four schools (mazhab) of Sunni Islamic thought. The counter opinion is that pronouncement of talak three times at once is only akin to the first of three pronouncements of talak. This opinion was held by Thawus, the Imamiyah school (mazhab) of Shi'a Islamic thought, Ibnu Taimiyah, and Ahlu az-Zahir. The fatwa states that the Committee finds the former opinion to be more sound. It also notes that marriage and divorce is regulated for Muslims in ss 10 and 31 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and ss 14-18 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975.

The fatwa states that efforts must be made to prevent three pronouncements of talak at once occurring again. Moreover, that if state marriage laws are implemented correctly, there will be no more incidents of three pronouncements of talak at once in Indonesia. The fatwa also acknowledges the significance of the role of the religious courts (pengadilan agama) in preventing such incidents occurring in the future.

The parties were married on 8 January 2006 and had two children. After their marriage, they lived in a rental property in Medan for a year. They then moved to the defendant's parents' home for a year, before living in another rental property. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had quarrelled since the beginning of 2007 because the defendant had not worked to meet the parties' domestic financial needs.

In July 2013, problems escalated after the defendant had an extra-marital affair with another woman. This caused the plaintiff to return to her parents' home. The defendant followed suit and returned to his own parents' home as well. The parties had remained separate for the past two years and seven months. Around January 2015, the defendant and his parents attended the plaintiff's parents' home in order for the defendant to orally divorce the plaintiff and draft a statement of divorce.

In acceding to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), the court noted that the parties had breached the mandate contained in arts 33 and 34 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and verse 21 of Al-Rum (The Byzantines) of the Qur'an. Moreover, the plaintiff had proven that the parties' marriage was irreparable, making divorce the only feasible course. The court, pursuant to 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 on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The first applicant submitted that she had married a man by the name of Drs. Moerdiono on 20 December 1993, pursuant to Islamic norms. According to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, a marriage is lawful if performed in accordance with the respective religion and beliefs of the persons wishing to marry. The first applicant's marriage, however, had not been recorded with the Office of Religious Affairs, as required by art 2(2) of the Law No. 1 of 1974. As a result, the legal status of the first applicant's child (the second applicant) was that the second applicant had been born out of wedlock, per art 43(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974, and therefore only had a civil relationship with his mother and his mother's family. According to Islam, however, the first applicant's child was legitimate (sah) because the applicant was married to the second applicant's father when the second applicant was born meaning the second applicant's lineage with his father must be acknowledged.

The applicant submitted that her constitutional rights and those of the second applicant, as guaranteed by arts 28B(1) and (2), and 28D(1) of the 1945 Constitution, had been repudiated by virtue of art 43(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974.

The court acceded to the applicant's submission regarding art 43(1) stating that the article was to be read down as meaning that a child's civil relationship with its father and its father's family depended on scientific proof that the child was a blood relation of the father.

The parties were married on 8 July 2005 and had two children aged eight and six years. At the time of the proceeding, the eight year old child was in the plaintiff's care, while the six year old child was in the care of the defendant. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for seven and a half years but, since December 2013, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had had an extra-marital affair with another woman;
2. was frequently physically and emotionally abusive towards the plaintiff, which had left the plaintiff traumatised; and
3. was irresponsible in maintaining a household, which would lead to regular arguments between the parties.

Problems escalated in January 2016 when the plaintiff simply wished to discuss with the defendant the drafting of the birth certificate of one their children. The plaintiff submitted that, for reasons unknown to her, this caused the defendant to become so enraged that he plunged the plaintiff into a full bathtub four times. The plaintiff then left the defendant and returned to her parents' home where she had remained since. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court acknowledged that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, it acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds of ongoing conflict, 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 parties were married on an undisclosed date and had one child. At the beginning of the marriage the defendant was unemployed and the plaintiff had to work to cover daily expenses. After eight years, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. would frequently use drugs, sometimes returning home in the middle of the night or the next morning in an intoxicated state;
2. frequently physically assault the plaintiff, even threatening to kill her; and
3. had carried on an extra-marital affair with another woman.

The plaintiff also submitted that since the parties had lived together, the parties' domestic life had become increasingly deleterious due to regular quarrelling. Moreover, that the plaintiff was deeply concerned for her own welfare and that of the parties' child if they remained living with the defendant. Since July 2014, the plaintiff left the parties' home, with their child, to live with her parents in Cirebon. Familial attempts to make the parties reconcile had failed. The plaintiff, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), as well as custody of the parties' child.

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. Furthermore, despite the defendant's absence from court, pursuant to art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it granted the plaintiff custody of the parties' child as the child was still pre-pubescent (belum mumayyiz) and below 12 years of age.

The parties were married on 15 July 2008 and had one child. Since July 2014 the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. had frequently physically assaulted the plaintiff;
2. had parents who would frequently meddle in the parties' domestic affairs;
3. was excessively suspicious of the plaintiff; and
4. would frequently besmirch the plaintiff's good name, telling the parties' neighbours and the plaintiff's colleagues that the plaintiff was difficult to deal with and that she had carried on an extra-marital affair with another man.

Problems escalated in mid-May 2015 when the plaintiff rejected the defendant's accusation that she had had an extra-marital affair with another man. When the defendant threatened the plaintiff with a knife the plaintiff left the parties' home. The parties had remained separated for the seven months leading up to the proceeding. Believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, and without any family members on which to rely or bring the parties to reconcile, 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 the Qur'an surah Ar-Rum verse 21, 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 Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The applicant submitted that, since 2013, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious. In December 2013, the applicant discovered that the respondent had had an extra-marital affair with another man and, since then, had lived separately from the respondent, until July 2014. In September 2014, the respondent had given birth to a child that was not the applicant's, having concealed the pregnancy via various means. The applicant finally decided to separate from the respondent.

The failure of both the applicant and respondent to attend court meant the court had no option but to render the application's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) null and void.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Kualasimpang Shari'a Court to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

In upholding the decision of the lower court, the Court acknowledged that the parties had already quarrelled for some time because of the appellant having had an extra-marital affair. The Court found that these were sufficient reasons to fulfil the requirements of art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage to grant a divorce.