SHARIAsource

This statute regulates the administration and documentation of key events relating to the Indonesian population, including births, deaths, marriage, divorce, court decisions, change of address, and change of name and status.

The Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), but also ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant IDR 3 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), mut'ah (divorce compensation) and kiswah (clothing).

The Court found the lower court was correct in granting the respondent a divorce. It found, however, the figure of IDR 3 million to be unjust and inadequate and, accordingly, increased the monies payable by the respondent to the appellant to: IDR 2.5 million (iddah); IDR 750,000 (kiswah); IDR 1.75 million (mut'ah) and IDR 500,000 in retrospective financial support, payable monthly since January 2009.

In Danial Latifi, the Indian Supreme Court found that the 1986 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act requires a Muslim husband to provide maintenance of a reasonable and fair amount needed to maintain his ex-wife for the rest of her life, but that he must pay this amount in total during the iddat period (three month post-divorce period).

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Kutacane Shari'a Court to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra). The Court found that legislation requires a proceeding to be conducted in camera if it is dealing with both a marriage ratification and an irrevocable divorce, which, in this case, it was. As it was conducted in an open forum, however, the Court held the decision of the lower court must be overturned.

The appellant sought to challenge the ruling of the Langsa Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra). The Court dismissed the appeal insofar as it agreed with the decision of the lower court to grant an irrevocable divorce. It did, however, amend the decision to ensure that the court registrar send copies of the decision to the marriage registry.

The appellant challenged the ruling of the Meulaboh Shari'a Court, which, among other things, deemed the marriage of the parties to be lawful, and granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shugra).

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court insofar as it granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce, however, it noted that the lower court was not required to first determine the lawfulness of the marriage.

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 successfully appealled against the decision of the Bireuen Shari'a Court (lower court), which had dismissed her divorce claim. The Court granted the appellant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), based on the grounds that the parties' marriage had broken down in 1993, which led to them separating on 23 April 2005. Moreover, efforts to reconcile the parties had been unsuccessful.

The Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce. In overturning the decision of the lower court, the Court made particular note of the parties' three children (aged 21, 19 and 17), who had informed the Court that their parents still lived together peacefully, and that they did not wish to see their parents divorce. The Court also noted that the respondent had not once attended any of the six additional court sessions.

The Lhoksukon Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (thalak satu ba'in sughra). The appellant sought to challenge the lower court's decision on the grounds that it was based on an unproven contravention by the appellant of the parties' wedding vows (ta'lik talak). The Court, however, held that the lower court's decision to grant a divorce was actually based on irreconcilable and ongoing conflict between the parties. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The parties, of Lebanese background, were married in Kuwait in 1973, though had moved to Australia in 1985 and maintained dual citizenship. In October 1998 the parties divorced Islamically through a local Islamic centre, then in November 1998 attended the Lebanese embassy and executed a power of attorney to allow their respective lawyers in Lebanon to proceed with the divorce application (and bypass the Australian legal system). These proceedings were not possible in Australia due to the maintenance of a mandatory one year separation period before divorces are granted. The divorce was subsequently granted in November 1998 in the Jaafarite Canonical Court in Lebanon, with the decree that neither party had rights or obligations towards the other. The husband subsequently remarried. 

The wife appealed subsequently applied for a divorce in the Australian courts under s 104(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), stating that this outcome was a denial of natural justice. 

The case stemmed on the recognition of the Lebanese divorce on the grounds that the parties had no 'property of consequence' in Australia (it was in Lebanon, where the wife had initiated court proceedings against the husband) and that the parties sought to bypass Australian law.

This case was unsuccessfully appealed by the applicant in Taffa & Taffa [2012] FamCA 181.

A Maryland court ruled that Sharīʿa Court lacked jurisdiction in a custody case since the couple never resided in the jurisdiction of the Sharīʿa Court. 

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 appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Meulaboh Shari'a Court, which, among other things, granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra) and specified child maintenance payments to be made by the appellant.

The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court to grant the the respondent an irrevocable divorce, concurring with the lower court that the ongoing conflict between the parties constituted a sufficient reason for divorce, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1075, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. In regards to child maintenance payments, however, the Court overturned the decision of the lower court on the grounds that the respondent had not made any request for such payments in the first instance.

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

The Court found that the parties had already undergone mediation, pursuant to Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2008, but stated that the lower court's decision needed to reflect the fact that the respondent, after divorcing the appellant, needed to carry out iddah, one of the aims of which is to carry out istibra', per art 41(c) Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 149 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, which in this case required the respondent to provide the appellant with financial support as determined by the Court.

The Court upheld the respondent's right to irrevocably divorce the appellant, while ordering the appellant to pay the respondent IDR 3 million for the period of iddah.

The Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the appellant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) from the respondent, but had also ordered the appellant to pay IDR 5.5 million in financial support to the respondent for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), mut'ah (divorce compensation) and maskan (accommodation). In regards to the respondent's counterclaim, the lower court had stipulated the parties' joint assets and ordered that they be split on a 50/50 basis. It also granted the respondent custody of the parties' child.

For all intents and purposes, the Court concurred with the decision of the lower court. It did, however, decide to hand down its own judgment, amending some of the formulaic errors it noted in the decision of the lower court.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Singkil Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), and ordered him to pay to the appellant IDR 3 million in iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted) compensation, IDR 5 million in muth'ah (divorce compensation) and kiswah (clothing), as well as IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance for the parties' three children until they become of age.

While the Court did not overturn the original decision, because the respondent was a senior public servant, his salary meant that he could afford to pay the appellant IDR 12 million as muth'ah and kiswah compensation.

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 couple had already divorced on 27 April 2010 before the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (Decision No. 01/Pdt.G/2010/MS-BNA). That decision had, however, only finalised the parties' divorce, as well as custody of their children. It had not determined the division of their joint assets.

In this instance, the court approved the plaintiff's application in regards to the 50/50 settlement of the parties' joint assets, which included a shop, and proceeds (IDR 90 million) from renting the shop from 1 June 2009-1 June 2012.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 2,461,000).

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.