SHARIAsource

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

The defendant did not attend court despite being summonsed. The court, pursuant to art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. Moreover, the court held that the parties' marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with arts 2 and 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 241,000).

The parties were married on 16 June 1994 and had one child (born 11 November 2000). The plaintiff submitted that:

1. the marriage had deteriorated since the 2004 tsunami;
2. the defendant had stopped caring for the plaintiff;
3. the defendant had stopped taking care of his family;
4. the parties had grown apart and now took care of themselves individually; and
5. the marriage was irreparable and caused the plaintiff stress and emotional suffering.

On 2 September 2014, the plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shugra) in the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court, and requested that the parties share custody of their child.

The plaintiff attended the first court session on 10 November 2014, but failed to return or send a proxy to the following sittings. The court revoked the plaintiff’s claim, ordered the registrar to remove the claim from the court listing, and ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 391,000).

The parties were married on 9 September 2007, had lived happily with the applicant’s parents for four years, and had one child (aged 7). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By September 2011, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The respondent had left the applicant and moved to the respondent’s parents' home without providing the applicant with a forwarding address. The parties had remained separated for three years and four months, during which time they had shared no physical intimacy. The applicant submitted that divorce was the only feasible option and, accordingly, requested that the court grant him a divorce (talak satu raj’i).

The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surat Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to 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 plaintiff's application for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds that the parties had been apart for longer than two consecutive years.

The Court found the decision of the Lhoksukon Shari'a Court (lower court) to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) to be erroneous. This was because the lower court had initially determined that the respondent was seeking a divorce on the grounds that the appellant had breached a term of their marriage contract (taklik talak), when in actual fact the respondent sought a divorce due to ongoing conflict (syiqaq). The Court stated that this change in reason conflicted with the relevant sections of the Guidelines on the Implementation of Tasks and Justice Administration.

Regardless, the Court also found that it had already been established that the parties had been separated since 3 January 2007, and noted that the appellant had conceded to not providing the respondent with emotional and financial support. This had been corroborated by information provided by witnesses. Accordingly, the Court found that, as the respondent's failure to provide such support contravened figures 2 and 4 of the marriage contract, there was no need for the respondent to change the legal rationale for which she sought a divorce. Instead, it granted the respondent a divorce upon her paying to the appellant a sum of money (iwath) to obtain his consent (talak satu khul'i).

The parties were married on 26 February 2008 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since February 2012, she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly, primarily as a result of the defendant having married another woman, unbeknownst to the plaintiff. It was also in 2012 when the defendant left the parties' home. Feeling the parties' differences were irreconcilable, the plaintiff lodged an application for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

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 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. It also cited Kitab Ia’natul Thalibin Juz III in support of its decision.

The parties were married on 30 December 2000 and had one child. After living in various rental properties over nine years, the parties settled, but a month later separated. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2010, she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly, primarily because the defendant had married another woman, unbeknownst to the plaintiff. In January 2015, the defendant finally left the parties' matrimonial home. The plaintiff believed an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) was the only feasible option available.

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 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. It also cited Kitab Ia’natul Thalibin Juz III, in support of its decision.

The parties were married on 12 February 2014 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, as early as March 2014, the marriage had begun to deteriorate because the defendant had:

1. refused to work, meaning he could not meet the parties' domestic needs, thereby compelling the plaintiff to work, and the plaintiff's parents to cover their needs; and
2. physically assaulted the plaintiff.

Problems escalated and, in December 2014, the defendant left the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed 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.

Based on the information before it, including witness statements, 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 10 November 1999 and lived with the defendant's parents. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious, but, since the birth of their first child, the plaintiff submitted that it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. frequently directed profane language at the plaintiff;
2. neglected the plaintiff, often leaving her at home alone for no apparent reason; and
3. often had unwarranted suspicions that the plaintiff was having an extra-marital affair.

In October 2011, problems escalated when the plaintiff looked after the defendant's aunt, who was then in Bulukumba Hospital. When the plaintiff returned home, the defendant became angry with the plaintiff, telling her to 'sell herself' ('jual saja dirimu'), causing the parties to argue, and then the defendant to leave the plaintiff. The parties had remained separated since. The parties' families' attempts to make the parties reconcile were in vain, and, as a result, the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option available was divorce.

Based on the information before it, including witness statements, 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.

The cassation applicant had been successful in Bantaeng Religious Court Decision No. 107 of 2012 in reclaiming land gifted to her as a dowry when she married her husband on 31 December 1945. That decision, however, was overturned in Makassar High Religious Court Decision No. 140 of 2012.

The cassation applicant challenged the Makassar High Religious Court Decision on the grounds that it had incorrectly applied the law. The Supreme Court concurred with the cassation applicant, stating that a dowry (mahar) is a gift from a prospective husband to his prospective wife, announced before a marriage guardian (wali nikah) and witnesses, recorded in the marriage certificate, and something that cannot be taken back. The Supreme Court also disagreed with the Makassar Court's finding that the location and boundaries of the land in question were unclear, based on the findings of a local inspection conducted and submitted to the court.

The parties were married on 14 April 2009 and had no children. The applicant submitted that the marriage had deteriorated because the respondent frequently complained that the applicant's income was insufficient. On 26 September 2010, the parties separated and each went to live with their respective parents. The parties were unable to reconcile and the applicant requested the court's permission to divorce the respondent.

The court found that the parties could not reconcile their differences, pursuant to art 39(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 31(1) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 82(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989, and art 115 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and in the Qur'an, Surat Ar-Ruum, verse 21.

Therefore, pursuant to art 39(2)(f) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the applicant permission to divorce the respondent on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the applicant to pay costs (IDR 391,000).

The parties were married on 14 September 1987 and had four children. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. By August 2004, however, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant had a tendency to become jealous, which often became the source of an argument. In December 2014, when the plaintiff returned home late one night, the defendant accused her of having been in the company of another man. The defendant then struck the plaintiff in the cheek and shoulder. In the beginning of June 2015, the defendant accused the plaintiff of having an extra-marital affair, which the plaintiff denied. In the ensuing argument, the defendant threatened to kill the plaintiff and throw hydrochloric acid in her face. Since then, the parties had slept in separate rooms, and the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support.

Feeling unable to cope any longer with the defendant's behaviour, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra). 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 22 May 1999 and had four children. For the first seven years of their marriage the parties lived in Sinabang, before the plaintiff returned to her parents' home in Kuala Makmur in November 2007. By May 2005, the marriage had become quarrelsome after the defendant had an extra-marital affair. Problems escalated on 14 November 2007 when the plaintiff learned that the defendant had married another woman. The plaintiff submitted that she had returned to her parents' home after the defendant married this other woman because he had no longer shown any care or regard for her and their children. Moreover, for the past eight years the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support. Accordingly, she requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) and, owing to her own impecuniosity, waive any court fees.

The court, pursuant to art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of the parties having been apart for two years or more and ongoing conflict respectively. It also determined that the court fee would be borne by the state.

The parties were married on 22 August 2008 and had two children, who were now in the plaintiff's care. The parties lived in the village of Sembilan before, in March 2014, the plaintiff moved to Ameria Bahagia and the defendant to Damai Makmur. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By March 2010, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had begun to smoke marijuana and gamble, among other illicit (haram) activities.

Problems escalated in March 2015 when it was discovered that the defendant had sold his motorcycle for IDR 3 million to his brother to feed his gambling addiction. When the plaintiff confronted the defendant over this he grabbed a machete, seemingly with the intent to kill the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently moved to her grandfather's home in Ameria Bahagia.

Unable to cope any longer with the defendant's behaviour, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), and, owing to her own impecuniosity, waive any court fees. 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. It also determined that the court fee would be borne by the state.

The parties were married on 20 February 2015, after which they lived with the plaintiff's parents in Madura for six months, before moving to Atambua in September that same year. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had failed to have a child in eight months, and that the marriage was no longer harmonious because the defendant had:

1. failed to provide for the plaintiff financially for the duration of their marriage;
2. frequently beaten the plaintiff;
3. failed to show any responsibility for the plaintiff, instead receiving financial support from the plaintiff's mother.

Problems escalated on 19 September 2015 resulting in the parties separating, the plaintiff moving to her parents' home in Atambua, and the defendant to his parents' home in Mojokerto, East Java. The parties had remained separated since and the plaintiff sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

In the defendant's absence, the Court acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per 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 28 October 2007, after which they had lived with the defendant's parents. The parties also had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, by the end of 2012, the parties' marriage was no longer harmonious because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair with another woman by the name of Yustika. The defendant's duplicity had become a source of tension between the parties, even moving the defendant to express his desire to divorce the plaintiff. By January 2013 both parties had returned to their respective parents' homes. The plaintiff submitted that, since the parties' separation, the defendant had contacted her to inform her that he had remarried. The plaintiff also requested that, owing to her own impecuniosity, the Court waive any procedural court costs.

In the defendant's absence, the Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21. It acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. It also ordered the state to bear the plaintiff's court costs.

The parties were married on 1 October 2010, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents. They had been married for eight years and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage was no longer harmonious, however, because the defendant had physically assaulted her. More specifically, he had burned a cigarette out on her right elbow and thigh because the plaintiff had failed to make the defendant a coffee to his satisfaction. As a result, the parties had been separated since 2011, and the plaintiff requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21, that being an everlasting and joyful, as well as peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) domestic life. It acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(a) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(a) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 6 November 1999, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents. They had four children, all of whom were now in the care of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had always been quarrelsome because the defendant had been reluctant to adhere to the requirements of Islam, that is, praying five times a day (shalat) and fasting for Ramadhan. Problems escalated in September 2004, the defendant leaving the plaintiff without her knowledge, after yet another argument. Since then the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support, and was no longer in contact with the plaintiff or their four children. Owing to her own impecuniosity, the plaintiff requested that the state bear her court costs.

The Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21, that being an everlasting and joyful, as well as peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) domestic life. It acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict, per art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 8 May 2006 but had no children. The applicant submitted that, since 3 February 2012, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious after the respondent had ignored the applicant's pleas for her to return to Atambua, after having obtained the applicant's permission to return to her parents' home in Ainiba to help plant a rice padi. Accordingly, the applicant sought the Court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'). Owing to his own impecuniosity, the applicant also requested that the state bear his court costs.

The Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21, that being an everlasting and joyful, as well as peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) domestic life. It acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict, per art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The Court also ordered the state to bear the applicant's costs.

The parties were married on 16 November 2012, after which they had lived with the respondent's parents in Agam. The applicant submitted that after three months of marriage the parties had begun to quarrel regularly because the respondent:

1. undervalued the applicant as her husband, often directing profane language at the applicant; and
2. was often unnecessarily jealous because the applicant was a driver, often becoming angry if the applicant returned home late, even refusing to let the applicant enter their home.

Problems escalated in April 2013 after the applicant confronted the respondent for her behaviour. A week after the respondent dismissed the applicant's advice, the applicant left the respondent for his parents' home. The parties had subsequently remained separated for the two years leading up to the proceeding. Accordingly, the applicant requested the Court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

The Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21. It acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per 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 18 March 2010 and had one child. They had lived with the plaintiff's parents for one year and six months, but by June 2011 the marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant would direct profane language at her, even frequently requesting a divorce. In August 2011, the defendant left the plaintiff without first informing her, and never returned. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had consequently been separated for one year and eight months, which had caused her great emotional suffering. Resigned to the fact that the parties' marriage could not be saved, 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 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, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.