SHARIAsource

The parties married on 18 December 2002 and had one child. Initially, their marriage was harmonious, however, the applicant claimed that the respondent's temperamental nature was the primary reason the parties had begun to quarrel regularly from 1 January 2011. The applicant maintained that the respondent would become angry over the smallest of issues, the cause of which the applicant was often unaware. The applicant also claimed that the respondent had verbally insulted his father in front of the village head.

The respondent was allegedly excessively jealous of the applicant and suspected the applicant was having an extra-marital affair. She had also made the applicant feel that whatever he provided his family (the respondent and their child) was inadequate. The parties' quarrelling caused the applicant to leave the matrimonial home, the applicant believing the marriage to be beyond repair given the lack of respect the respondent had shown him.

Despite having been summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend the proceeding. 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, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 7 May 2011 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that since January 2012, the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was a result of:

1. differing values vis-a-vis domestic affairs, namely the defendant's dishonesty regarding financial affairs; and
2. the defendant often stealing other people's property, causing the plaintiff and her family to have to apologise to the relevant persons.

Problems escalated in March 2012 causing the plaintiff and defendant to separate, with the defendant having lived in rental accommodation for approximately the past two years and five months up until the time of the proceeding.

Despite being summonsed formally, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding. Due to the ongoing conflict between the parties, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra), 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 November 2011 and had one child. The applicant submitted, however, that, since January 2014, the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was a result of:

1. the respondent often going out at night for no apparent reason and without the applicant's permission; and
2. the respondent ignoring the advice and wishes of the applicant.

Problems escalated in June 2014 when the respondent no longer showed any appreciation for the applicant as the head of the household. This led to the the respondent leaving the matrimonial home with the applicant's blessing. The parties had remained separated for approximately two months leading up to the divorce proceeding. Despite being summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend the proceeding.

Due to the ongoing conflict between the parties, 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 court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The parties were married on 28 December 2008 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, from September 2013, the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was the result of the defendant's violent and harsh demeanour and behaviour towards the plaintiff and their child, which had an obvious and unfortunate psychological impact on the child. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant had spoken to her in such a manner since they were married, and that the defendant's excessively selfish attitude meant he would never listen to the opinions of others, nor did he ever provide his family with sufficient financial support. At the time of the proceeding, the parties had already been separated for eight months.

Due to the ongoing conflict between the parties, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra), 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 October 2007. The applicant submitted that he and the respondent had been happily married for six years and four months. From November 2013, however, the marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the respondent had had an extra-marital affair;
2. the respondent no longer executed her domestic responsibilities;
3. the applicant had divorced the respondent three times as a result; and
4. if domestic life were to continue, the respondent would not provide any serenity therein.

Problems escalated in April 2014 when the applicant discovered that the respondent was still having an extra-marital affair with the same man, an affair the applicant had already excused. The applicant had already made an effort to save the marriage, as had both parties' families, but these were in vain. 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 applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 28 November 1994. In September 2012 and after 18 years of marriage, however, the defendant left the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that, since June 2004, the marriage had been quarrelsome. This was the result of the defendant becoming angry and easily agitated by the smallest of problems, resulting in his use of profane language and threatening to divorce the plaintiff. In addition, the defendant often resorted to physical violence towards the defendant, slapping and hitting the plaintiff to the extent that the plaintiff had incurred nerve damage to her right eye for which she was still receiving medical treatment.

Since their separation in September 2012, there had been no physical intimacy between the parties, and the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support. The defendant also failed to attend court, despite having been summonsed formally. 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 Sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The applicant submitted that, since the parties' marriage on 14 June 2013, he and the respondent had never been physically intimate because the respondent refused, and that even when they slept in the same bed, the respondent would place a doll between them. In addition, the applicant claimed that the respondent did not want to execute her responsibilities as a wife, including cooking and serving food, even when the applicant would do so himself, with the help of the respondent's parents.

In August 2014, the applicant felt he could no longer cope with the respondent's attitude and decided to leave the matrimonial home. Attempts by family to reconcile the parties were to no avail, as was judicial mediation. Moreover, the respondent failed to attend court, despite having been summonsed formally. The court found that ongoing conflict between the parties, 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, was sufficient reason to grant the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The parties were married on 6 March 2012 and had two children. The applicant, however, submitted that, since approximately 2011, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. This was the result of the respondent:

1. showing no appreciation for the applicant as her husband;
2. instructing the applicant to leave their home;
3. directing profane language at the applicant;
4. not wanting to move house when asked by the applicant; and
5. going to an undisclosed location without the applicant's permission.

Problems escalated in December 2011 resulting in the applicant leaving the respondent for two years and six months. The applicant attempted to reconcile with the respondent, but to no avail.

Despite being summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend the proceeding. Regardless, the court found that ongoing conflict between the parties, 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, was sufficient reason to grant the the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The parties were married on 10 June 1975, had eight children, and had lived together harmoniously for seven years, up until 1982, when they started to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of the defendant:

1. often going out at night and returning in the middle of the night, or not at all;
2. rarely being at home, and more often than not spending his time out of the house; and
3. often gambling.

Problems escalated in 2002 when the defendant married another woman, repudiating his marriage with the plaintiff. Despite efforts from both the plaintiff and defendant's families to make the parties reconcile, as well as the court advising the plaintiff against divorce, the court found that ongoing conflict between the parties, 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, was sufficient reason to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (thalak satu bain shughra).

The parties were married on 25 May 2001. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had become disharmonious in 2003 because:

1. the parties had not conceived a child for the first ten years of their marriage, and the respondent had stated she did not want to have the applicant's children, nor continue being his wife;
2. the respondent felt that the applicant never provided enough financially;
3. the respondent often rebutted the applicant's advice and directed profane language at him; and
4. the respondent always accused the applicant of spending the applicant's parents' money.

Problems escalated in April 2003 with the respondent, unbeknownst to the applicant, leaving the matrimonial home as a result. The efforts of both parties' families to reconcile the parties were unsuccessful, and the respondent failed to attend formal mediation proceedings. Accordingly, 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 applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu roj'ie) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 16 August 2002 and had two children. The parties had lived harmoniously until May 2011; however, the plaintiff submitted that she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly since January 2013. This was primarily due to:

1. the defendant confessing before his family to having had an extra-marital affair;
2. continuous irreconcilable arguing and fighting between the parties;
3. the defendant having breached his marriage vows (taklik-talak); and
4. the defendant having not been physically intimate with the plaintiff since September 2013.

Problems escalated in September 2013 resulting in both parties returning to their respective parents' homes. The plaintiff had attempted to reconcile with the defendant by bringing their families together to deliberate, but to no avail. The court was also unsuccessful in its attempts to counsel the plaintiff to reconcile with the defendant. In the defendant's absence, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, 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 30 July 2006 and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. The applicant submitted, however, that, since January 2014, it had become quarrelsome because:

1. the parties no longer agreed on domestic affairs;
2. the respondent often rebelled against the advice of the applicant;
3. the respondent often referred to the applicant's past;
4. there had been a communication breakdown between the parties;
5. the respondent had not been a good wife to the applicant; and
6. the respondent was temperamental and did not want to listen to the applicant's opinions.

These problems escalated in June 2014, causing the parties to separate. After unsuccessfully counselling the applicant to reunite with the respondent, and the respondent failing to attend the proceeding, the court, 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, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 30 May 2011. The applicant submitted that, in around 2012, the parties' home life had become disharmonious. This was primarily the result of the respondent often being angry with the applicant, and if the respondent was angry, she would often leave the home without saying where she was going. Problems escalated in May 2013 when the respondent left the home without saying, taking with her her clothes and some money. After being separated for six months, the applicant concluded that the only solution was to divorce the respondent.

Despite the respondent's absence in court, the court acceded to the applicant's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). Acknowledging that marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, that being a happy family and domestic life, was no longer feasible, it granted the divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 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 5 September 2007 but had no children. In August 2012, the parties' marriage became strained when the plaintiff went to Saudi Arabia to work. The plaintiff returned in July 2013, during which time the defendant had provided the plaintiff with no emotional or financial support. Problems escalated in August 2013, resulting in the plaintiff moving to live with her parents. Feeling the parties' marriage was beyond repair, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra).

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 plaintiff submitted that, since November 2010, the parties' marriage had become disharmonious because:

1. the parties quarrelled regularly because the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial support, and the defendant often stayed at his parents' home rather than the parties' home, and in the event of an argument, the defendant would often return to his parents' home for up to one month, after which the parties would then quarrel again;
2. finally, in mid-August 2014, when the plaintiff had rejected the defendant's request that the plaintiff provide him with her work documents, payslip, identity card and family card as financial guarantee for his friend's car, the defendant had become angry and returned to his parents' home with his clothes in tow.

While the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), the court dismissed her application on the grounds that her claim did not contain a legal reason for divorce, as required under art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage was harmonious until 2008, after which time he and the respondent had begun to quarrel regularly because:

1. the respondent was never satisfied with the amount of financial support provided by the applicant, that being the applicant's entire monthly salary (IDR 1,600,000); and
2. the respondent would often direct unsubstantiated accusations at the applicant that he had had an extra-marital affair.

The applicant claimed that he had sought to reconcile and improve the parties' marriage, but, since October 2008, had felt compelled to leave the matrimonial home and return to his parents' home. Despite having been summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend the proceeding. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds that the parties had been apart for more than two years.

The Bireuen Shari'a Court (lower court) had stipulated the joint assets of the parties in its decision, including a parcel of land, a vehicle, and a range of household applicances. The lower court had ordered the appellant to transfer half of those assets to the respondent, and to sell those assets that could not be transferred, instead transferring half the proceeds from those sales to the respondent.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the lower court, specifically in regards to the parcel of land. The Court held that, while the appellant had purchased the parcel of land when he was married, he did so only having just married the respondent, but more importantly, using money he had saved from having worked for his parents prior to marrying the respondent, before he had his own business and source of income.

The Court also commented that the philosophy behind art 35 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage was that marriage adds value to assets acquired collectively as husband and wife, whereas in this case, the parcel of land was not acquired under such circumstances and could therefore be distinguished from true joint assets. It found in favour of the appellant in this regard.

In regards to the parties' three children, the Court granted joint custody, but required the appellant to pay IDR 1 million per child, per month in child maintenance, until the children were independent.

The parties were married on 6 October 1998. They lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ home and had three children (aged 16, 8 and 4). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. In 2011, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant, since 2011, had not provided the plaintiff with financial support, and that the defendant, in 2013, had married another woman without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent. Problems escalated and the defendant left the plaintiff in 2011, after which time communication between the parties ceased. The plaintiff claimed to have suffered as a result of this and requested the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba’in Sughro).

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, and, 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 request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

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.