SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 4 November 2012, but for the first seven days of their marriage, the parties were not physically intimate. Then, on 11 November 2012, the plaintiff learned that the defendant had married another woman, without the permission of either the plaintiff or a religious court. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had married pursuant to their parents' wishes, rather than their own. The plaintiff subsequently moved from her parents' home, where she had briefly lived with the defendant, to her aunt's home. The parties had remained separated for the five months leading up to the proceeding, and the plaintiff was resigned to the fact that the marriage could not be salvaged. Accordingly, she 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.

The parties were married on 27 March 1992 but had no children. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had only been harmonious for the first five years, after which time it had become quarrelsome. This was because of the vulgar and angry manner in which the respondent would behave towards the applicant, especially if the applicant mentioned the prospect of having children. Communal efforts had been implemented in an attempt to make the parties reconcile, but those efforts had been in vain. On 29 April 2012, the parties separated. The applicant submitted that he could no longer cope remaining married to the respondent and, accordingly, requested that the court grant him permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent.

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 applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 22 April 2007 by the village imam. The respondent's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry (mas kawin) had been a prayer instrument purchased with cash. After the parties were married, they had lived together in Kendari for two weeks with the applicant's family before returning home to Ambon. The parties also had one child, who was currently in the respondent's care.

The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until the beginning of 2009, after which time it had become quarrelsome. The applicant submitted that this was because the applicant's first wife and her family would often threaten the respondent, telling her that the applicant intended to divorce her. This would, in turn, leave the respondent feeling threatened and demanding that the applicant divorce her. The applicant submitted that the parties had separated in December 2010, both parties having neglected their spousal obligations to one another. Accordingly, the applicant requested the Court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

The court acceded to the applicant's request, but also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 2.7 million for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and IDR 3.5 million as mut'ah (divorce compensation).

The parties were married on 26 October 1988 and had three children. After 22 years, however, their marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant frequently:

1. owed others money, unbeknownst to the plaintiff;
2. sold the parties' personal property, unbeknownst to the plaintiff;
3. stole money from the plaintiff; and
4. left the parties' home in the afternoon without saying anything, only to return in the middle of the night.

On 30 December 2010, when the plaintiff inquired with the defendant as to the parties' personal property that the defendant had sold, the defendant had become enraged. As a result, the parties had slept in separate beds for the past five years and three months, during which time they had not been physically intimate, nor had the defendant provided the plaintiff with any financial support. He had, however, provided the parties' children with spending money. The parties attempts to reconcile through consultation and deliberation had been unsuccessful.

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) and 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 April 2014. They had lived at the plaintiff's home for one year and four months but had no children. The plaintiff submitted an application for divorce on the grounds that:

1. since August 2015 the parties had frequently quarrelled; and
2. the cause of their quarrelling was that the defendant had neglected his duty to provide the plaintiff with financial support.

As a result, in August 2015, the defendant had returned to his parents' home and the parties had remained separated for five months.

Acknowledging that the parties' marriage was irreparable, for the purposes of art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. Despite the defendant's absence, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughro) pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and of the Compilation of Islamic Laws on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 3 December 2002 and had one child. They had lived with the defendant's parents for seven years and three months. The plaintiff submitted an application for divorce on the grounds that:

1. since March 2010 the parties had begun to quarrel frequently; and
2. the cause of their quarrelling was that the defendant had turned to gambling, drinking and playing billiards, neglecting his spousal responsibilities in the process.

As a result of the parties' quarrelling, the plaintiff had left the defendant for her parents' home in March 2010 and the parties had remained separated for five years and nine months.

Acknowledging that the parties' marriage was irreparable, for the purposes of art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. Despite the defendant's absence, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughro) pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The plaintiff submitted that she and the defendant were married on 7 August 2015, after which time they had lived at the plaintiff's parents' home. While they had already consummated their marriage, the parties had no children. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious, but for the past two weeks it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant had failed to provide for her financially. Moreover, the defendant had refused to look for work. Following their disagreement the defendant had returned to his parents' home. While the defendant had sought to reconcile with the plaintiff, the plaintiff had initially refused to do so.

While the plaintiff had initially requested an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), she informed the court that she and the defendant had reconciled and that she would be withdrawing her application. The court directed the court registrar to withdraw the application and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 241,000).

The parties were married on 14 September 2009 and had an 8 year old child. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had been harmonious until February 2010, after which time it had begun to deteriorate because the defendant rarely provided her with any financial support, rarely worked, and then, in April 2010, left her without any notice. The plaintiff's subsequent attempts to ascertain the whereabouts of the defendant were unsuccessful. Having concluded that the defendant was an irresponsible husband, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 19(f) and (b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and (b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, and that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years.

The parties were married on 4 August 2007 and had lived with the applicant's parents for eight years and seven months. While they had had a child, the child had died at birth on 21 November 2013. The applicant submitted that the marriage had been harmonious until 8 March 2016 when the applicant learned that the respondent was having an extra-marital affair with another man. Problems escalated on 11 March 2016, resulting in the respondent leaving the matrimonial home without notice. For the next month the respondent had not returned home, nor had she contacted the applicant. The applicant submitted that the respondent's conduct constituted neglect of her responsibilities as a wife. The applicant, accordingly, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

After corroborating the applicant's submissions with information provided by two of the applicant's witnesses, the court acceded to the applicant's request, 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, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 1 June 2011 and had one child, a three year old boy who was living with the defendant. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until December 2015, after which time it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. was too subservient to his parents, never heeding the plaintiff's advice; and
2. requested that the plaintiff return money he once sent the plaintiff while he was in Malaysia.

Problems escalated on 25 January 2016, resulting in the plaintiff leaving the defendant's home to live with her parents. While the plaintiff's family advised her to reconcile with the defendant, their efforts were to no avail. The plaintiff, therefore, 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 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 6 October 2009. They had lived with the respondent's parents and had no children. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By May 2014, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent had failed to value the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Moreover, the respondent stopped coming home after she began carrying on an extra-marital affair with a man she had met at the discotheque at which she was employed. Problems escalated in June 2014 resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past two years and familial attempts to make the parties reconcile had failed. The applicant, accordingly, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 26 June 1998 and had two children, both of whom were in the custody of the respondent. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. By June 2000, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. frequently neglected her duties and responsibilities as a wife;
2. was stubborn when counselled by the applicant;
3. frequently opposed the applicant as his wife;
4. had a disharmonious relationship with the applicant's parents and siblings;
5. was excessively jealous and suspicious of the applicant; and
6. frequently uttered the word 'divorce' ('cerai') to the applicant.

The final argument between the parties occurred on 24 December 2016 for reasons which were not apparent to the applicant. The respondent then handed the applicant his clothes and told him to leave the parties' home. The parties had remained apart for the past 10 days, during which time the applicant had sought to reconcile with the respondent, albeit unsuccessfully. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

After receiving counsel from the court, however, the applicant agreed to withdraw his application. The court also acknowledged that the parties had sought to reconcile their differences.

The parties were married on 18 January 1985. They had lived in Central Java for about 20 years before moving to a rental property in Sukajadi until they separated. They had two children and had been married for 25 years. Since 2010, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. would become unnecessarily angry on a regular basis;
2. was temperamental;
3. had frequently physically assaulted the plaintiff;
4. had carried on an extra-marital affair with another woman; and
5. had neglected the plaintiff and failed to provide her with financial support.

In 2015, after yet another argument, the parties decided to separate. They had remained apart for a year at the time of the proceeding. Familial attempts to make the parties reconcile had been unsuccessful and, having concluded that the parties' differences were irreconcilable, 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 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 12 June 2010 and had two children. Since December 2014 the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. had failed to provide financially for the plaintiff and their child;
2. frequently embarrassed the plaintiff on social media;
3. frequently contacted other women on his mobile phone; and
4. frequently said he would marry another woman.

Problems escalated and, on 10 December 2015, the plaintiff decided that she could no longer cope with the defendant's behaviour. After separating from the defendant for the past two months leading up to the proceeding, 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 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 4 November 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome by 2013 because the defendant:

1. rarely returned home;
2. had not disclosed his many debts to the plaintiff; and
3. had been unnecessarily suspicious of the plaintiff for no apparent reason.

The parties had subsequently been separated since 18 March 2015, during which time the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support. The plaintiff submitted that she had concluded she had no other option but to irrevocably divorce the defendant (talak satu ba'in sughro).

Despite the defendant's absence, 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.

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the Republic of India (Republic of India/Bharatiya Ganarajya), based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under India's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has no legal status. 

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the Kingdom of Bahrain (Mamlakat al Bahrayn), based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under Bahrain’s Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has legal status, and is the principal source of legislation.

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of Brunei Darussalam (Negara Brunei Darussalam), based on research produced by the Library of Congress. Under Brunei's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) is the principal source of legislation. 

The parties were married on 2 February 1994 and had two children. They had lived harmoniously as husband and wife for 21 years, however, in 2000, the respondent fell ill. This had compromised her ability to be physically intimate with the applicant for approximately the past four years. Concerned that he would commit adultery (zina), in December 2014, the applicant requested the respondent's permission to marry again. The respondent granted him permission. The woman the applicant proposed to marry was fit and proper in that she did not breach any shari'a or civil legislative requirements: she was not a blood relative of the applicant or respondent, nor had they shared a wet nurse; she was a divorcee and not engaged to another man; and her marriage guardian was prepared to marry them. The applicant also told the court that he believed he was capable of having more than one wife as his monthly salary was IDR 5 million, he had promised to be fair to both wives as well as his children, and the respondent had prepared a written statement in support of the applicant. The applicant also told the court that he and the respondent were prepared to separate their joint assets if the applicant were granted judicial permission to marry again.

The court counselled the applicant on the consequences and risks of polygamy, advising him not to go ahead with the second marriage. Its advice, however, went unheeded. With this in mind, the court cited verse 3 of Surat Annisa from the Qur'an, which does not prohibit polygamy but places the onus on the man to prove he will treat both wives fairly, as enunciated in art 55(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court was of the opinion that the applicant would treat his wives and children fairly, and, as required by art 5(1.b) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 58(1.b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, could financially afford to care for them. After the applicant signed a statement attesting to do so, meeting the requirements of art 5(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Law No. 1 of 1974, as well as art 41(b) and (c) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975. The court acceded to the applicant's request and stipulated the items acquired by the parties as a married couple as their joint assets.

The parties were married on 10 February 2008. They lived together and had two children (aged 6 and 2). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By August 2014, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that:

1. the defendant would often not come home from work, providing no reason or explanation;
2. the defendant often pawned the parties’ household items, including her parents' car, providing no reason or explanation;
3. the defendant, since October 2014, had ceased to financially support the plaintiff;
4. the defendant had sold the title to the plaintiff’s parents' property solely for his own benefit; and
5. while the plaintiff had often financially supported the defendant in the hope he would change, he had not.

In January 2015, the plaintiff left the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the aforementioned circumstances had caused the marriage to deteriorate irreparably, and requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in shughra). The plaintiff also requested that the court grant her custody of the parties' child, and order the defendant to pay to her IDR 1,000,000 per month in child support.

While the plaintiff cooperated with the court, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding, despite having been summonsed. The court found that the marriage was irreparable and could no longer fulfil the purposes of art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and that the plaintiff’s claim satisfied the requirements of art 39(2) 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, in that the parties' differences were indeed irreconcilable. The court, however, did not consider the plaintiff’s claims for custody or child support because she subsequently withdrew that part of her claim. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay all court costs (IDR 316,000).