SHARIAsource

The plaintiff's claim stated that, after the parties were married on 1 October 2010 before a marriage registry official from the local Office of Religious Affairs, work commitments had necessitated their living apart. The plaintiff worked at the Sungai Garinggiang Public Health Centre, and lived at the Health Centre's service house, while the defendant lived with his parents in Padang. Once every three days the plaintiff returned to her parents' home until the parties separated. The parties had one child.

The plaintiff submitted that, since the beginning of the marriage, she and the defendant had quarrelled continuously. This was because:

1. the defendant did not dedicate enough time to the plaintiff; and
2. the plaintiff had heard from family friends that the defendant had had an extra-marital affair, and, while the defendant had denied the allegation, the plaintiff's own investigation revealed that the defendant had indeed had an affair with his previous girlfriend.

Problems escalated in mid-October 2012, as the defendant was still in contact with his previous girlfriend. While the defendant denied these allegations again, the ensuing argument caused him to leave the plaintiff's parents' home. The parties had remained separated since then, and the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support. In August 2013, the plaintiff was informed by friends of the defendant that the defendant had married his previous girlfriend.

The court noted that its advice to the parties that they reconcile had been to no avail. Moreover, the defendant had no objections to the plaintiff's request for a divorce. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 29 December 2004, and had two children on 23 September 2004 and 6 November 2010. Their marriage had been harmonious until 2012, when the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The applicant submitted that this was because the respondent:

1. did not carry out her responsibilities as a wife, such as preparing food for the applicant;
2. incorrectly suspected the applicant of having had an extra-marital affair, and would never listen to the applicant's explanations;
3. was excessively jealous of the applicant's family and objected to things such as the applicant providing his parents with money; and
4. whenever the parties would argue, would direct obscenities at the applicant, even in public.

Problems escalated in July 2013 when the respondent, for no apparent reason, ignored the applicant. The argument that ensued caused the respondent to ask the applicant for a divorce, which led the applicant to move to a rental property and the respondent to return to her parents' home. As mediation had failed to make the parties reconcile their differences, the applicant was of the opinion that the marriage was no longer tenable.

The court concurred, citing art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, in finding that the parties' ongoing conflict constituted a sufficient reason to grant the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), as prescribed in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The court, pursuant to art 152 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 5 million, IDR 4.5 million of which was for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted). The court deemed the remaining IDR 500,000 sufficient for mut'ah (divorce compensation), as contained in art 149(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The applicant was also ordered to pay to the respondent IDR 750,000 per month in child maintenance.

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 13 February 2012 and had one child, born on 17 May 2013. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until the end of 2013. After that time, however, it had become quarrelsome because the respondent had been disobedient towards the applicant, would become excessively jealous and suspicious of the applicant, and if the applicant ever counselled the respondent the parties would quarrel. On one such occasion, the applicant orally divorced the respondent, after which time the parties separated.

In response to the applicant’s submissions, the respondent requested IDR 5 million per month in retrospective maintenance (nafkah) back dated to June 2014. The respondent also requested IDR 20 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted) and mut’ah (divorce compensation) in the form of a 24 karat gold bracelet, IDR 10 million for maskan (accommodation), IDR 10 million for kiswah (clothing), custody of the parties' child, IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance, and that the parties' vehicle be seized to prevent the applicant from transferring the ownership thereof. The respondent then withdrew her request regarding the parties' vehicle.

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. The court also acknowledged that the applicant's monthly wage was IDR 7 million. Accordingly, he would only be able to afford the following:

1. IDR 5 million for iddah;
2. a 6.6 gram gold ring as mut'ah;
3. IDR 1 million for kiswah; and
4. IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance (the court awarded custody of the parties' child to the respondent).

Chapters on nominate contracts (endowment, sales, options, barter/ mu‘āwaḍa, hire and lease, partnerships -shirka, muzāra‘a, musāqāt, muḍāraba-, reward/ju‘āla, deposit, fungible and non-fungible loan, agency, financial and personal guaranty, assignment, settlement, pledge, gift), shuf‘a, wills, inheritance, marriage and divorce, mahr, and alimony took almost all of its substance from prominent Shi’i fiqh treatises. Other chapters (classification of properties, easement, usufruct, general rules of obligations and contracts, nationality, registration of civil status, domicile, engagement, guardianship, and evidence) are mainly influenced by Swiss and French Civil Codes and Swiss Code of Obligations.

The parties were married on 18 September 2005. The plaintiff submitted, however, that only a few months after she and the defendant had married, she received a telephone call from a woman calling herself Ciah, claiming to have secretly married (nikah siri) the defendant and being five-months pregnant with the defendant's child. From thereon, this became a point of contention between the parties, despite the defendant never validating the claims made by this other woman.

The plaintiff alleged that other causes of tension between the parties included:

1. the defendant often being angry with the plaintiff for no apparent reason;
2. the defendant never contributing financially to the parties' domestic needs, thereby making the plaintiff assume he was spending his salary on his other wife;
3. the plaintiff and defendant having been separated since the end of 2013;
4. since the beginning of 2011, the defendant having not executed his spousal responsibilities vis-a-vis the plaintiff; and
5. notably, frequent quarrelling between the parties causing the plaintiff to want to move to Bireuen for work, but not being granted permission to do so by the defendant, the dispute escalating to the point that the defendant hit the plaintiff, causing her to seek medical treatment for facial bruising.

The plaintiff also claimed that, from January 2011-present, the defendant had failed to provide her with financial and emotional support. The plaintiff quantified the financial support she believed the defendant owed her at IDR 2 million per month for 41 months (IDR 82 million). The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant had failed to provide her with a true dowry (mahar) at the time of their marriage. Rather, the defendant had borrowed five grams of pure gold from the plaintiff's parents, which he had returned after they were married, vowing to the plaintiff that he would one day give to her five grams of pure gold, or the cash equivalent thereof. The defendant, the plaintiff submitted, never upheld that promise.

The court acknowledged that the plaintiff had appropriately sought and obtained a letter of permission from her superior officer to divorce the defendant, and that the defendant's objection to that letter was irrelevant insofar as the court was unauthorised to intervene in the affairs of a government agency. The court also noted that the parties had sought to reconcile their differences via mediation, but to no avail.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in shughra), acknowledging that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and surat Al-rum verse 21, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) homelife was no longer feasible. Moreover, that ongoing conflict between the parties was sufficient reason to grant a divorce, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court, however, dismissed the plaintiff's claim for back-payment maintenance costs (IDR 82 million), noting that the plaintiff, like the defendant, worked as a civil servant, who would had to have first obtained the defendant's permission to work. The court noted that if one of the plaintiff's reasons for wanting to divorce the defendant was due to a lack of financial support, to then demand money from the defendant would contradict her claim.

The parties were married on 8 December 2010 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that she and the defendant had lived happily together for 10 years and one month, although their marriage had been volatile at times. In June 2010, the parties had begun to quarrel often, primarily because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair, which the plaintiff had learned out about from Facebook and the defendant himself.

The plaintiff left the matrimonial home in July 2010 and had not returned in the five months leading up to the proceeding. Throughout that five months the parties had not been physically intimate, however, the defendant had provided the plaintiff with some financial support. The parties had also maintained some form of communication.

While being counselled by the court, the plaintiff expressed a desire to reconcile with the defendant and withdrew her application. The court acceded to the plaintiff's decision.

The applicant's parents and two of the applicant's siblings had already passed away. Another of the applicant's siblings was a retired primary school teacher who had some financial savings, but whose failing health had meant she had been placed in hospital care, as well as that of the applicant. As her primary caregiver, the applicant sought to acquire power of attorney over her ailing sibling's financial affairs.

The court, pursuant to art 51(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 107 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, found that the applicant was fit and proper to become guardian of her ailing sibling. Accordingly, it granted the applicant the necessary power of attorney.

The parties were married on 5 March 2012 and had no children. The applicant submitted, however, that, since December 2013, the marriage had become quarrelsome because of the parties' lack of compatibility. As a result, they had lived separately for the past eight months. The applicant, in an attempt to reconcile with the respondent, had even requested the help of the respondent's parents, but this proved to be unsuccessful.

The applicant's failure to attend court on two separate occasions (26 August 2014 and 9 September 2014), even after being summonsed formally, however, meant the court dismissed his claim for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). The applicant was also ordered to pay costs.

The parties were married on 11 February 2012. Then, in March 2012, the plaintiff left the defendant's parents' home, where she had been living with the defendant, unable to cope with the poor way in which the defendant was treating her. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant would often leave her for several days without saying where he was going, and that the defendant only once provided her with the necessary financial support from the time they were married. Moreover, the plaintiff's attempts to keep the marriage on foot, hoping the defendant's attitude would change, had been in vain. Accordingly, pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds that the parties had been apart for more than two years.

The applicant submitted that, since 2014, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. This was due to the fact that the respondent was never content with the monthly sum of money with which she was provided by the applicant (IDR 3 million), and, more specifically, in mid-May 2014, the respondent had requested IDR 6 million, an amount the applicant could not afford. Despite being summonsed formally, the respondent failed to appear in 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, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties had three children, one of whom had passed away prior to the proceeding. Since 2013, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious after the defendant had had an extra-marital affair and married this other woman in December 2013. In addition, the defendant's unemployment meant he was unable to provide the plaintiff and their children with any financial support, and the money he did have he would spend on his new wife, rather than paying back debts he had with other people. As a result, the parties had lived separately since January 2014. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 26 June 2010. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. The applicant submitted, however, that, since around 8 February 2013, his relationship with the respondent had become strained because:

1. the respondent often left the house for no apparent reason and unbeknownst to the applicant;
2. the respondent often quarrelled with the applicant's parents;
3. the respondent was resistant to advice and if the applicant counselled her, the respondent would become angry and suicidal; and
4. the applicant wanted a child while the respondent was infertile and would regularly visit a shaman.

Accordingly, since that date, the parties had lived separately.

Due to ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The parties were married on 27 February 2009. The plaintiff submitted that by June 2009, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. This was the result of the lack of responsibility the defendant had shown his family, including not providing the plaintiff and their child with enough financial support to meet their daily needs.

Problems escalated in June 2014 as the defendant continued to provide the plaintiff with insufficient financial support. This triggered the plaintiff to instigate an argument with the defendant, resulting in the defendant leaving the matrimonial home. The parties had remained separated since.

The court found that ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was sufficient reason to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The parties were married on 20 December 1992. They had three children, all of whom were now in the care of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that, in around 2006, the parties' marriage had become disharmonious. This was primarily a result of the defendant's infidelity, notably, in 2008, when the defendant stated he wanted to divorce the plaintiff and marry another woman. In September 2013, the defendant confessed to having had an extra-marital affair, resulting in the applicant and respondent separating for one month. At the time of the proceeding, however, the plaintiff stated that she and the defendant had reconciled their differences and that she wished to withdraw her application. The court accepted the plaintiff's request.

The parties were married on 21 August 1998 and had remained happily married for 16 years. Since July 2012, however, they had begun to quarrel regularly because, the applicant submitted, the parties had been unable to conceive a child. As a result, the parties had separated in June 2014. The applicant submitted that a divorce was the only feasible option.

The court acceded to the applicant's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), pursuant to art 37 of the elucidation 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.

The parties were married on 31 July 2009 and had one child. Due to adverse economic conditions in Indonesia, the plaintiff had relocated to Hong Kong in 2011 for work. In 2013, the plaintiff returned to Indonesia for three weeks, where she discovered the defendant had frivolously spent the money the plaintiff had sent home. This caused the plaintiff and defendant to fight and argue, having already lived apart for approximately two years.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to the elucidation of 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 parties were married on 4 March 2001 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that while the marriage had been harmonious initially, by December 2003 it had become quarrelsome because:

1. the defendant had failed to provide for his family; and
2. the parties frequently had differing opinions.

Problems escalated and, by July 2014, the parties were sleeping separate beds. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

On the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 22 July 2007 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that while the marriage had been harmonious initially, by January 2013 it had become quarrelsome because of:

1. the parties' differing opinions regarding domestic affairs; and
2. inadequate finances.

Problems escalated in October 2014 resulting in the parties separating, the plaintiff leaving the matrimonial home. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

On the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 5 December 2010 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since January 2012, the parties marriage had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide for the plaintiff financially;
2. seldom came home, for no apparent reason; and
3. prioritised his parents over the plaintiff.

Problems escalated and, by June 2014, the parties had separated. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.