SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 29 March 2007 but had no children. They had begun to quarrel as early as April 2007, after the defendant had reverted to Catholicism, having previously converted to Islam. That same month they separated.

The plaintiff maintained that her attempts to reconcile with the defendant had been in vain, and that the defendant's reversion to Catholicism had caused her great suffering. It followed that the plaintiff believed that 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, as well as on the grounds that the defendant's reversion to Catholicism caused had disharmony in the parties' homelife, 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) and (h) 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 7 August 2001 but had no children. Initially, their marriage had been harmonious. Since 2003, however, the plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial support;
2. frequently used profane language with the plaintiff, even when discussing insignificant matters; and
3. was frequently suspicious of the plaintiff, directing unwarranted accusations at the plaintiff claiming that she had had an extra-marital affair.

On 11 July 2012, problems escalated when the defendant accused the plaintiff of having an extra-marital affair simply because she had received a text message and telephone call from one of the defendant's relatives. Two days later, finding his poor attitude intolerable, the plaintiff left the defendant. The parties had remained separated for the three months leading up to the proceeding. As a result of the suffering the defendant's conduct had caused the plaintiff, 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 parties were married on 2 September 2002, had no children, and lived with the plaintiff's parents. Initially, their marriage had been harmonious. Since 2006, however, the plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had not provided the plaintiff with sufficient financial support; and
2. frequently used profane language with, and physically assaulted, the plaintiff, even when discussing insignificant matters.

On 27 October 2012, problems escalated when the plaintiff asked the defendant to move his motorcyle from inside the house to out on the terrace. When the defendant refused to do so, the plaintiff became angry and silenced the defendant. At 4.30pm, the defendant suddenly hit the plaintiff because she had not communicated with him all day and, consequently, the plaintiff told the defendant to leave her parents' home. The defendant never returned. As a result, the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option remaining 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 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 first year of their marriage was harmonious, however, from thereon the parties had begun to quarrel regularly because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. frequently directed profane language towards, and hit, the applicant, even over minor matters; and
2. would become angry if the applicant gave money to his daughter (from a previous marriage).

Problems between the parties escalated and, on 15 May 2012, when the respondent became angry that the applicant was helping his son-in-law renovate his house, the applicant physically assaulted the respondent, and then left her. The parties had remained separated since (for approximately five months). The applicant's family's attempts to make the parties reconcile proved to be in vain. Believing there was no hope for the parties to reunite, the applicant requested that the Court grant him a divorce.

The respondent denied having directed profane language at the applicant, having physically assaulted him, or having been angered by the applicant providing his daughter with money. The respondent also disputed the claim that the applicant helping his son-in-law renovate his house had upset her; rather, she submitted, it was the applicant who was angry and had, therefore, hit the respondent.

The respondent submitted her own counterclaim, noting that the applicant had provided her with a 10 x 10m plantation as a dowry (mahar), and that the parties had, as a joint asset, a 25-acre plantation. The respondent sought that the dowry plantation be returned to the applicant, but that she acquire the 25-acre plantation.

The applicant submitted that the respondent had never enjoyed control of the dowry property, and that the respondent should not be granted ownership of the 25-acre plantation. Moreover, that the parties had other joint assets that the respondent had not disclosed to the Court, which were:

1. pledged land (IDR 10 million);
2. a stilted house, (6m²);
3. 40 tiles (30cm²);
4. installation costs for one kilometre of electricity (IDR 3.2 million);
5. Malaysian gold purchased in 2008, in the form of a 20-gram necklace, and two 7-gram rings (IDR 8 million);
6. one water pump (IDR 500,000); and
7. a hajj deposit in both parties' names.

The respondent submitted that, as the applicant's daughter had often come to the dowry plantation to take some of the plantation's yield, without the respondent's permission, the respondent would return the dowry plantation to the applicant in exchange for the 25-acre plantation. The respondent also submitted that installation costs for a kilometre of electricty were not a joint asset because that money was the result of the respondent selling her property for IDR 3.5 million.

The court acceded to the applicant's request for a divorce, granting a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), pursuant to 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 court noted, however, that, based on witness evidence, as well as the parties' submissions, the respondent had not been a disobedient or defiant wife (nusyuz), and that, because it was the applicant who left the matrimonial home, the respondent was entitled to receive financial maintenance payments from the applicant. The court ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 300,000 per month for three months (IDR 900,000) for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted). In addition, the court ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 300,000 in mut'ah (divorce compensation).

The court dismissed the respondent's claim over the 25-acre plantation, but granted her the dowry plantation on the grounds that it had been in her possession since the parties married. The court concurred with the applicant regarding the seven joint assets, ordering the respondent to provide to the applicant 50 per cent of those assets.

The court was of the opinion that the applicant did not want the case to go ahead, and, accordingly, dismissed the application.

The parties were married on 21 May 2008 but had no children. They had lived with the plaintiff's parents for the first three nights of their marriage, before moving to the defendant's parents, where they then lived for two years and nine months. As early as October 2008, however, the plaintiff alleged that she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly because the defendant:

1. was often intoxicated and showed no signs of reforming;
2. was frequently abusive (verbally and physically) towards the plaintiff; and
3. frequently suspected the plaintiff was having an extra-marital affair.

On 6 February 2011, problems escalated when the plaintiff went to her parents' home to work on the rice padi her parents had given her. Before leaving, the plaintiff had requested the defendant's permission, but when the plaintiff returned two days later, the defendant became angry, stating that he had only granted the plaintiff permission to stay at her parents' home for one night, not two. The defendant then ordered the plaintiff to leave their home, and since then, the parties had remained separated (one year and three months). During that time, the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support. The defendant's family's efforts to make the parties reconcile were also to no avail. As a result, the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option remaining 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 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 June 2006 and had one child. They lived with the respondent's parents for one year, before moving to their own home, where they had lived for approximately five years. The applicant, however, claimed that he and the respondent had begun to quarrel regularly because the respondent:

1. had ordered the applicant to leave the house;
2. often owed other people money, unbeknownst to the applicant; and
3. frequently directed profane language at the applicant.

When problems escalated, the parties separated. The applicant's family's efforts to make the parties reconcile were also to no avail. As a result, the applicant believed that the only feasible option remaining was divorce.

The court stated that, because the case centred around a domestic dispute, art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 76(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989, compelled it to hear information from witnesses who were family or persons close to the parties, in order to ascertain the extent of the quarrelling between the parties. Based on the information provided by the two witnesses produced by the applicant, the court was convinced that the applicant's claim was grounded in fact. Moreover, the purpose of marriage, being to create a joyful and enduring family and domestic life, per art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, the court acceded to the applicant's request and granted him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The parties were married on 19 February 1992, after which time they lived with both the applicant's parents and respondent's parents, before settling with the applicant's parents as the applicant was an only child. After the birth of their two children, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly, primarily because the applicant had wanted a third child, whereas the respondent did not. Problems escalated in May 2012 when the respondent threatened to harm the applicant if he did not leave the house. The respondent had also reported the applicant and the applicant's father to the police for physical assault, but a subsequent police investigation had revealed that her allegations were unfounded. The applicant, therefore, believed that, due to ongoing conflict between the parties, divorce, pursuant to s 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and s 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, was the only feasible option.

The respondent counterclaimed for custody of the parties' children, as well as for financial support and compensation from the applicant.

The court acceded to the applicant's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), and while it did not accede to the amount of financial compensation sought by the respondent, it did order the applicant to pay to the respondent:

1. IDR 10 million in mut'ah (divorce compensation);
2. IDR 3 million for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted); and
3. IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance.

The plaintiff married her husband on 31 December 1945, upon which her husband gave her a 20-acre plot of land as a dowry (mahar). The plot of land had been controlled by the plaintiff's husband's younger sibling since 1983 until the present. When the plaintiff's husband passed away, her mother-in-law asked to use the land until she passed away herself. When her mother-in-law passed away, the plaintiff requested of the defendant that the land be returned to her, but the defendant refused to do so. The plaintiff had also sought to resolve this dispute in a familial manner through deliberation and by making polite requests, but the defendant had not responded in a favourable manner himself, compelling the plaintiff to instigate proceedings.

In response to the plaintiff's claim, the defendant submitted that, when the plaintiff married her husband, the defendant himself was not yet an adult and, therefore, could not have known that the land constituted the plaintiff's dowry. Moreover, that he had sold the land in order that he have some money when he married his wife. Two years later he re-purchased the land, but he did not want to return it to the plaintiff because he believed it to be his inheritance from his parents. The plaintiff asserted that, as the land the defendant believed to have previously belonged to his parents was 35 acres, and the dowry land was 20 acres, only 15 of those acres actually belonged to the defendant.

The court found that the evidence submitted by the defendant did not support his case, whereas evidence submitted by the plaintiff showed that the 20 acres in question had indeed been given by the plaintiff's husband to the plaintiff as a dowry on the day of their marriage. Accordingly, the court ordered the defendant to transfer to the plaintiff the 20 acres of land.

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 25 September 2011 and had one child, who was in the plaintiff's care. Initially, their marriage was harmonious, but after the birth of their child, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted this was because the defendant:

1. had not provided her with any financial support, rather, giving his entire income to his parents; and
2. was frequently emotionally and physically abusive towards the plaintiff, even over minor matters.

Problems escalated and, in April 2013, when the parties' child passed away, the defendant left the plaintiff for Kalimantan and cut all ties with her. As the defendant's whereabouts were unknown, nothing could be done by the parties' families to orchestrate a reunion. Accordingly, the plaintiff believed that divorce was the only feasible option available.

Based on the evidence before it, including that provided by witnesses, pursuant to 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 sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. In further support of its decision it cited surat ar-rum verse 21, Kitab al-Qawaid al-Fiqhiyyah li al-Syaikh Muhammad Halim al-Utsaimin, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, emphasising that the purpose of marriage had long ago been repudiated by the parties.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 10 July 1992 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had five children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 21 August 1985 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had four children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 15 July 1983 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had six children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 25 May 1992 by the village imam. The second applicant's brother had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had two children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 5 October 1995 by the village imam. The second applicant's brother had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had two children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 14 April 1974 by the village imam. The second applicant's brother had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was four acres of land paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had two children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 17 May 1981 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had two children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 17 May 1981 by the village imam. The second applicant's brother had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had a child. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their child.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.