SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 25 April 1997 and had four children (aged 16, 12, 7 and 4). The parties' marriage had been harmonious for approximately three years before becoming quarrelsome by the beginning of 2002. The applicant submitted that the respondent:

1. was not transparent with her finances;
2. would ignore the applicant’s advice and did not care about the troublesome situation at home; and
3. provided her own family with financial assistance (by selling the gold jewellery the applicant had purchased for her, unbeknownst to the applicant), but did not contribute to her own immediate family.

In 2014, these problems escalated and the parties separated (although the court stated that the parties separated on 8 November 2012).

On 13 November 2014, the applicant filed for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) in the Kuala Simpang Shari'a Court. In response to the applicant’s submissions, the respondent submitted that the applicant had already married another woman without the respondent’s permission, which the applicant conceded. The applicant also agreed to pay to the respondent IDR 1 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted) and mut’ah (divorce compensation), in the form of a prayer instrument.

The court acceded to the applicant's request, finding 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. 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, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, while also ordering the applicant pay to the respondent IDR 1 million for iddah, the aforementioned prayer instrument for mut'ah, as well as court costs (IDR 191,000).

The parties were married on 7 March 2011 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had deteriorated due to economic hardship, that being that the defendant had made no effort to obtain employment, was often intoxicated, and therefore unable to contribute financially to meet the parties' domestic needs. In 2013, the parties separated.

On 11 November 2014, the plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sugro) 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.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff’s request, granting an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughro), and ordering the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 401,000).

The parties were married on 16 September 2012 and had two children (aged 14 and 10). The plaintiff submitted that, during the marriage, the defendant:

1. had had an extra-marital affair with a woman named Ami;
2. had married a woman named Diana without the plaintiff’s permission; and
3. often left the house without telling the plaintiff.

The parties divorced in April 2011 and married again on 26 September 2012. Problems escalated and, on 13 September 2013, the plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra).

The court acceded to the plaintiff's request, finding 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, 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, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 491,000).

The parties were married in 1994 and had three children (born 10 September 1995, 27 November 1998 and 17 April 2001). The parties’ marriage was never formally registered. In 2007, the parties separated and the applicant married another woman, whom the applicant divorced in 2011. On 18 October 2011, the parties married again, this time formally registering the marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs. The marriage deteriorated and, in May 2014, the respondent left the applicant and never returned. The parties stopped communicating and, on 15 December 2014, the applicant filed for a divorce.

The applicant submitted that during the marriage:

1. despite the applicant providing the respondent with his entire monthly salary (IDR 2 million per month), the respondent always requested more money from the applicant;
2. the respondent often left the house without asking the applicant or informing the applicant where she was going;
3. the respondent prioritised herself over the applicant and their children, and failed to carry out her duties as a housewife; and
4. the respondent often communicated with other men via telephone.

The applicant submitted to the court that the marriage was irreconcilable and requested permission to divorce the respondent.

Despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request, finding that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. Accordingly, 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, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the applicant to pay court costs (IDR 791,000).

The parties were married on 10 April 1994 and had four children. The plaintiff submitted that, around 2013, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly because the defendant:

1. did not appreciate the plaintiff as his wife;
2. no longer executed his responsibilities as a husband; and
3. had had an extra-marital affair.

Problems escalated in 2013, resulting in the parties sleeping in separate beds (despite remaining under the same roof). Regardless, the plaintiff believed that the marriage was irreparable, making divorce the only feasible option.

In his oral response to the court, the defendant disputed the three causes of conflict between the parties, but held no objection to the court granting the plaintiff a divorce.

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 her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 7 May 2005 and had two children. From December 2012 the parties' marriage had become disharmonious as a result of regular quarrelling. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of:

1. the defendant's egotistical tendencies, never validating the plaintiff's opinion; and
2. the defendant being physically and psychologically abusive towards the plaintiff.

Problems escalated and, in August 2013, while remaining under the same roof, the parties had begun to sleep in separate beds. Regardless, the plaintiff believed the marriage was irreparable and that divorce was the only feasible option. As a civil servant, the plaintiff had also already obtained permission to divorce from her superior officer (the Mayor of Kendari).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff’s request, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) 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, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also deferred to expert Islamic legal opinion in Kitab Ia'natul Thalibin Juz III, which dictates that a court is to grant a wife a divorce if she is no longer happy with her husband. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 241,000).

The parties were married on 25 August 2008 (NB: the court's findings state they were married on 21 August 2008) and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that eight months into her first pregnancy the parties had quarrelled and the defendant had grabbed and pushed her to the floor with utter disregard. At the time, the plaintiff reported the defendant to the authorities for acts of domestic violence, however, the defendant fled for Bombana in search of gold and his parents. The plaintiff's parents advised her to reconcile with the defendant and to withdraw her police report, which the plaintiff did for the sake of the parties' marriage.

In 2011, the parties appeared to have reconciled their differences, already having had their first child. The defendant then proceeded to have an extra-marital affair with another woman, while choosing to spend all his income on this other woman and none on the plaintiff. The plaintiff also submitted that during an encounter with the other woman, she had learned that the defendant had been carrying on this extra-marital affair while the plaintiff was pregnant.

The defendant had also been incarcerated for transporting petroleum. Upon his release from prison, the plaintiff began working at Kredit Colombus (a credit company) to make ends meet. When the defendant, however, forbid her from working the parties had begun to quarrel again. The plaintiff submitted that their disputes were also the result of the defendant:

1. demanding that the plaintiff return to him the spending money with which he had provided her, if he himself had run out of money;
2. forbidding, and becoming angry with, the plaintiff from working to pay for domestic household needs;
3. damaging the plaintiff's belongings and that of the household when he became angry;
4. physically assaulting the plaintiff when he became jealous for no established reason;
5. often threatening the plaintiff, causing her great fear and trauma;
6. regularly instructing the plaintiff to divorce him; and
7. controlling the parties' finances and only providing the plaintiff with money when she needed/requested it.

While the parties' families had endeavoured to make the parties reconcile, following Eid Mubarak in 2014, the plaintiff left the defendant and returned to her parents' home, where she had remained until the time of the court proceeding. During that time, the defendant continued to terrorise and threaten the plaintiff, leaving the plaintiff with no other option but to seek an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra). The plaintiff also sought custody of the parties' two young children, as well as IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance until the children were adult and independent.

The court deferred to expert Islamic legal opinion in Kitab Ia'natul Thalibin Juz III, which dictates that a court is to grant a wife a divorce if she is no longer happy with her husband. Moreover, citing art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 65 of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, and art 5 of Law No. 23 of 2004 on the Abolition of Domestic Violence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. In its findings, however, it did not explicitly accede to the plaintiff's request for child maintenance payments.

The parties were married on 11 April 2004 and had four children. The applicant submitted that, since 2009, he and the respondent had quarrelled regularly as a result of the applicant's advice to the respondent on how best to conduct herself as a good wife. Problems escalated on 15 April 2014, resulting in the respondent leaving the applicant and their children. The applicant maintained that divorce was the only feasible option.

The respondent responded to the applicant's allegations, stating that it was not just she who had not been a good wife, but the applicant who had not been a good husband, evidenced by his having had an extra-marital affair with another woman. While the respondent had no objections to the applicant's application for divorce, she requested:

1. custody of the parties' four children;
2. that the applicant replace the respondent's jewellery that he had sold;
3. that the applicant repay debts related to the pre-marriage customary dowry; and
4. monetary compensation for iddah (three-month period following divorce having been granted).

The applicant denied having had an extra-marital affair, but rather asserted that the respondent had had an extra-marital affair of her own. The applicant also requested that the court grant custody of the parties' first and second children to the applicant, while granting custody of the parties' third and fourth children to the respondent. The applicant also asserted that, while two pieces of the respondent's jewellery had been sold to pay for instalments on a motorcyle, he was prepared to replace them, as well as to provide the respondent with monetary compensation for iddah, provided it was compatible with his own income, which was sporadic at best. In regards to repaying the dowry, the applicant could not ascertain the amount as it was a family member who had arranged it at the time of the parties' wedding.

Following deliberations, the applicant orally withdrew his application for divorce, while the respondent provided the court with verbal assent to the withdrawal. The court treated both parties' in-court communications as a binding agreement, pursuant to art 1338 of the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata), and ordered the applicant to pay court costs (IDR 381,000).

The parties were married on 29 September 2003 and had two children. Since 2013, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly after the respondent had had an extra-marital affair and then married the other man. Problems escalated and, on 24 September 2014, the respondent left the parties' matrimonial home. As a result, the applicant believed divorce was the only feasible option.

Despite having been summonsed, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the respondent failed to attend court. Citing Surat Al-Baqarah verse 227 from the Qur'an, as well as 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 acceded to the applicant's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 29 May 2010 and had one child. By 2011, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of the defendant:

1. directing profane language at the plaintiff;
2. often damaging items in the home; and
3. sometimes physically assaulting the plaintiff.

Problems escalated and, by the beginning of 2013, the plaintiff had left the defendant. As time passed, the plaintiff believed that divorce was the only feasible option.

Despite having been 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. Citing Surat Al-Baqarah verse 227 from the Qur'an, as well as 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 acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 301,000).

The parties were married on 7 January 2011 but had no children. Only a day after their nuptials, a woman by the name of Asfarni visited the parties' home claiming to be the defendant's unofficial wife (istri siri). The parties later separated on 23 January 2011, and the plaintiff believed that divorce was the only feasible option.

The court, however, dismissed the plaintiff's application on the grounds that she had provided it with the incorrect address of the defendant, thereby making it impossible to summons the defendant. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 501,000).

The parties were married on 23 December 1997 and had three children (aged 15, 14 and 8). The marriage deteriorated and, in January 2015, the parties separated. On 22 January 2015, the applicant filed for a divorce. The applicant submitted that during the marriage:

1. the respondent admitted to having had an extra-marital affair with another man; and
2. the respondent had showed insufficient care for the applicant and their children.

The applicant submitted to the court that the marriage was irreconcilable and requested permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj’i).

The parties attended court-sanctioned mediation, which made them reconcile their differences. The applicant withdrew his application on 10 February 2015. The court acceded to the withdrawal and ordered the applicant to pay court costs (IDR 391,000).

The parties were married on 27 March 2005 and had two children (born 21 February 2008 and 21 April 2012). From 2007, the parties' marriage had begun to deteriorate. The plaintiff submitted that this was because:

1. the defendant, a car dealer, owed money to his clients;
2. the plaintiff often had to pay the defendant’s debts;
3. the defendant never acknowledged any wrongdoing; and
4. the defendant spent all the money that he earned on himself.

In May 2011, the defendant left the plaintiff, providing her with no information of where he was going. For the next three years and two months, the defendant failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. Accordingly, the plaintiff submitted to the court that the parties' marriage was irreconcilable and filed for an irrevocable divorce for a fee (talak satu khul’i).

Despite the defendant's absence from the proceeding, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, finding the defendant in contravention of figures 1, 2 and 4 of his marriage vows (janji talik talak). Citing Kitab Syarqowi alat tahrir juz II, as well as art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce for a fee (talak satu khul’i), ordering the plaintiff to pay a divorce fee (iwadl) of IDR 10,000, as well as court costs (IDR 346,000).

The parties were married on 22 August 2006 and had two children. By November 2012, however, the marriage had deteriorated. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of economic hardship, and the parties separated in 2013.

The plaintiff submitted to the court 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 filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, and, 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 bain shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 431,000).

The parties were married on 19 November 2011 and had one child. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. Entering their third year as husband and wife, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant would often leave their home without informing the plaintiff, not return until the middle of the night, without any legitimate excuse, and sometimes return enraged, sometimes even physically harming the plaintiff and their child.

Following Eid al-Fitr (Idul Fitri) in 2014, the parties had begun to sleep in separate beds. On several occasions, the plaintiff had reminded and counselled the defendant to treat his family well. Her advice fell on deaf ears, however, as the defendant's behaviour worsened, resulting in him leaving the plaintiff, and returning to his own parents' home. The plaintiff submitted that, in order to protect the welfare of the parties' child, as well as that of her own, and taking into account that the child was under the age of 12 (mumayyiz), she should, pursuant to art 150 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, be granted custody of the child. Moreover, that the defendant should be ordered to pay to the plaintiff IDR 5 million per month in child maintenance until the child had either reached adulthood or was independent. The plaintiff also submitted that a judicial divorce (talak satu bain sughra) was the only feasible option.

Following deliberations between the court and the plaintiff's legal representation, the plaintiff agreed to temporarily withdraw her application for divorce on the grounds that she was heavily pregnant. Accordingly, despite the defendant's absence from court, the parties remained married. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 261,000).

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 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 1 March 2008 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since 21 July 2010, she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly because the defendant:

1. showed a lack of care for the plaintiff and their child;
2. had failed to financially support the plaintiff and their child since 2010;
3. would often leave the house and return in the middle of the night, or not return at all sometimes;
4. was frequently intoxicated.

Problems escalated and, on 22 November 2010, the defendant left the parties' 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 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 13 May 2006 and had one child. After marrying, the parties lived with the plaintiff's parents for several weeks, before returning to Bali, where the defendant was stationed for work, and where the plaintiff was completing her medical degree at Universitas Mahassaraswati in Denpasar. While in Bali, however, the parties did not live together: the defendant lived in a rental property in Jembrana, while the plaintiff lived in a boarding house (rumah kost) in Denpasar. On one occasion, when the plaintiff was late to collect the defendant from a bus terminal, the defendant struck her in the head. While she was wearing a helmet at the time, the plaintiff still decided not to reprimand the defendant. The parties maintained these living arrangements until the plaintiff completed her studies in 2007, when the plaintiff then moved into the defendant's rental property in Jembrana.

While living together, the defendant's fondness for cockfighting became a source of tension between the parties. When angry, the defendant would often throw whatever objects happened to be in front of him, and, on one occasion, threw an empty gallon container at the plaintiff while she was pregnant. The plaintiff claimed she then cried and went to her room, while the defendant allegedly shouted 'go home to your parents' ('pulang saja ke orang tuamu'). The plaintiff later moved to the defendant's parents' home in Jember, East Java, while the defendant remained in Jembrana. The parties occasionally argued on the telephone, as a result of the plaintiff frequently hearing that the defendant was fraternising with another woman.

Around the fasting period in 2008, when the plaintiff was seven-eight months pregnant, the plaintiff heard from the neighbour and landlord of the defendant's rental property that a woman had visited the defendant from 8pm-3am. Upon receiving this information, the plaintiff became convinced that the defendant was having an extra-marital affair. When the parties spoke again on the telephone, the defendant occasionally uttered profanities that left the plaintiff feeling upset and in tears.

As the plaintiff was entering her ninth month of the pregnancy, the defendant visited her at his parents' home. One evening the plaintiff inquired with the defendant as to whether or not he had had an extra-marital affair. In response, the defendant threw an ashtray, causing the plaintiff to run into her room and lock the door out of fear. The defendant chased her, and, attempting to enter the room, proceeded to cause damage to the door handle. Concerned that the neighbours might overhear the commotion, the plainitff opened the door to her room, only for the defendant to start causing damage to a cupboard door with his fists. When the plaintiff retired to bed, the defendant then jumped up on the plaintiff's bed, almost landing on the plaintiff's pregnant stomach. After the defendant's mother intervened, the defendant sat down calmly and confessed to having had an extra-marital affair. The defendant acknowledged he was prepared for the plaintiff to divorce him, but maintained that the child was his and would go with him.

The next day the defendant apologised to the plaintiff for his wrongdoing, and the plaintiff spoke with the woman with whom the defendant had had the extra-marital affair. The woman confirmed the information provided to the plaintiff by the landlord. The next day the plaintiff experienced some pregnancy-related bleeding and was brought to Bina Sehat Hospital. The hospital noted that, as the plaintiff had experienced some psychological stress, the pregnancy would be expedited.

In 2009, after the child was born, it lived in Jember with the defendant, per the defendant's wishes. While the plaintiff was working in Kendari for two years as a civil servant, the defendant equivocated as to when he would bring the child to visit the plaintiff in Kendari. As a result, the plaintiff often visited her child in Jember. During her visits to Jember, the plaintiff became aware from things the child would say that the defendant was not showing the child any affection, and that the child was being deprived of its mother's love, something, the plaintiff told the court, pivotal to any child's development. When the plaintiff was about to return to Kendari, the child would cry while hugging the plaintiff and calling 'Mama... Mama... Mama...'.

The plaintiff had also provided the defendant with significant financial support to assist him in establishing a catfish business. During one of her visits to Jember, several months after a catfish harvest, the defendant's mother informed the plaintiff that the defendant had visited a shaman (dukun) to ensure that the plaintiff was not happy in Kendari. When the plaintiff inquired with the defendant about this, in front of the defendant's mother, the defendant punched the plaintiff in the face several times, felling the plaintiff in the corner of her room.

After deliberately limiting her communication with the defendant, the plaintiff re-established contact in November 2012.The defendant, however, only used the opportunity to order the plaintiff to arrange the parties' divorce. The parties did not communicate at all in 2013, after the defendant requested that the plaintiff not disturb him. From the beginning of 2010, the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support, and the parties had not been physically intimate since August 2012. Pursuant to arts 39, 42 and 44 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 56 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the plaintiff sought a judicial divorce and custody of the parties' child.

Despite acknowledging that court-sanctioned mediation had been unsuccessful in reconciling the parties' differences, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application. The court acknowledged that the defendant had disputed and repudiated the plaintiff's submissions, but more significantly, it stressed that it was dismissing the application on the grounds that the two witnesses produced by the plaintiff had never seen the parties quarrel, did not know the nature of the parties' domestic situation, and the information they had provided to the court was, therefore, immaterial. On the same grounds, it dismissed the plaintiff's application for custody of the parties' child.