SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 4 May 2009. The plaintiff submitted that since the parties married, she had been invited to live at the defendant's parents' home in Jakarta. While pregnant she was verbally abused and threatened with divorce by the defendant, and, then in December 2009, while heavily pregnant, returned to her parents' home to give birth. After the birth of the child, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to return to the defendant's parents' home with their child and the plaintiff's parents. In August 2012, due to economic concerns, the parties returned to Padang to live with the plaintiff's parents, while the defendant searched for employment (albeit unsuccessfully). In October 2012, following a minor problem, the defendant left the plaintiff and their child and, since then, had not returned to see the plaintiff and their child or to provide financial support for the child.

The court, pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, found that because the defendant had contravened figures 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage contract by not providing the plaintiff with any financial support for three months, and not caring for the plaintiff for more than six months (it had already been nine months), the evidentiary burden for divorce contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage had been met. The court granted the plaintiff a divorce and custody of the parties' child based on the plaintiff paying to the defendant IDR 10,000 (talak satu khul'i).

The parties were married on 24 October 2007, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents for approximately four months, before moving to a rental property in Padang for approximately one year. They then moved to the defendant's parents' home before separating.

By 2009, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was largely due to the defendant's temperamental nature, whereby he would project his anger about something else onto the plaintiff, as well as the defendant having had an extra-marital affair. The plaintiff also submitted that whenever the parties argued, the defendant would resort to physical violence, leaving the plaintiff with physical injuries. The defendant would even threaten the plaintiff with sharp objects. The plaintiff's statement of claim also referenced the defendant's alcohol and drug addiction, for which she had unsuccessfully counselled him.

Problems escalated in January 2012 when the plaintiff was arrested after police found narcotics in the matrimonial home. At that point the defendant had already left the plaintiff, but because the plaintiff had not reported the defendant to the police earlier, she was imprisoned for one year. During this time the defendant very rarely went to visit the plaintiff. Upon her release from prison the plaintiff heard that the defendant had remarried but was also serving five years in prison himself for drug-related offences.

The court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) on the grounds that ongoing conflict between the parties meant that there was no hope for them to create a joyful and enduring domestic life, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1947 on Marriage.

The parties were married on 1 March 2008, and had two children on 15 December 2008 and 12 December 2012. The first four years of their marriage were harmonious. At the beginning of 2013, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant:

1. had had an extra-marital affair with a work colleague, which she had surmised from the defendant's behaviour: notably, calling the woman in question late at night; and
2. had showed a lack of care for the plaintiff, often coming home late at night, despite having only worked until 5.00pm.

Each time the parties would argue about the defendant's duplicity, the defendant would promise to leave the woman in question, only to contact her again after a short while.

From January 2014, the defendant would seldom come home to the parties' matrimonial home, instead spending more time at his parents' home. Problems escalated at the end of November 2014 when the plaintiff learned from a friend of the defendant that he had married the woman with whom he was having the affair. The parties remained in the same house briefly, but separated properly not long after. Convinced the marriage was no longer tenable, the plaintiff requested the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

While the defendant failed to attend both court sessions, upon the counsel of the court, the plaintiff chose to withdraw her application for divorce in an attempt to reconcile with the defendant.

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 9 October 2009 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since March 2011, the marriage had begun to deteriorate because the defendant:

1. had not provided the plaintiff with sufficient financial support, only taking care of himself, while neglecting the plaintiff and household, compelling the plaintiff to find work;
2. would always send his parents money, at the expense of the plaintiff and their child; and
3. had questioned the paternity of the parties' child.

Problems escalated and, in February 2012, the defendant left the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that she had suffered emotionally as a result of the defendant's conduct and 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, 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, 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 21 July 1985 and had eight children. The marriage had been harmonious until 2010, when, the plaintiff submitted, it had begun to deteriorate because the defendant:

1. often gambled;
2. often physically assaulted the plaintiff when the parties would argue; and
3. was often dishonest, and also neglected the plaintiff and their children.

In 2014, people often saw the defendant with another woman near the parties' place of residence. Problems escalated in April 2015 when the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had had an extra-marital affair. While the parties remained under the same roof, they now slept in separate beds, as a result. The plaintiff claimed that she had attempted to reconcile with the defendant, but to no avail, and that the suffering caused by the defendant's conduct left her to believe 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, 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, 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 21 February 2002 and had two children. Initially, their marriage had been harmonious. Since April 2013, however, it had deteriorated because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had:

1. never provided her with sufficient financial and emotional support, neglecting her and their family, compelling the plaintiff to work herself;
2. had an extra-marital affair, which the plaintiff had discovered from text messages sent to the defendant's mobile phone, as well as seeing the defendant with another woman; and
3. often left the parties' home for weeks on end to be with this other woman.

In August 2013, after the defendant had left, the plaintiff returned to her parents' home. As a result of the suffering the defendant's conduct had caused the plaintiff, 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, 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, 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 26 May 1998 and had three children. Initially, their marriage had been harmonious. Since September 2012, however, it had deteriorated because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had:

1. been physically abusive towards the plaintiff;
2. had an extra-marital affair; and
3. secretly married another woman, unbeknownst to the plaintiff.

In February 2013, the plaintiff left the defendant, unable to tolerate his poor attitude, as well as the lack of financial support with which he provided the plaintiff. The plaintiff's attempts to reconcile with the defendant had also been in vain. As a result of the suffering the defendant's conduct had caused the plaintiff, 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, 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, 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 26 August 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, as early as November 2012, the marriage had deteriorated because the defendant had:

1. been dishonest with his finances insofar as he had saved a portion of his income for another woman; and
2. had an extra-marital affair with another woman.

Problems escalated and, on 16 December 2012, the defendant orally divorced (pronounced talak) the plaintiff before two witnesses, executed a document with the necessary stamp-duty stating as much, and left the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option remaining was judicial 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, 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, 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 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 8 July 1995 and had three children (born 10 April 1996, 28 March 2002, and 2 February 2007). After they married they lived in Padang for a year, before moving to Jakarta for two years, then to Medan for six months, before finally returning to Padang. The marriage was harmonious for the first 15 years, before it became quarrelsome in mid-2010. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide enough for the plaintiff and their family;
2. was abusive towards the plaintiff's family; and
3. was known to have to have stolen money from people that lived near the parties' home, which reflected badly on the plaintiff.

The plaintiff also submitted that when the parties would argue, the defendant would use inappropriate language with her, even once hitting the plaintiff, causing her plaintiff physical and emotional suffering. Problems escalated on 23 December 2014 when the defendant appropriated IDR 21 million from another person's savings account. This left the plaintiff requesting that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), feeling as though she could no longer sustain a marriage with the defendant.

The court acceded to the request, finding sufficient reason to grant a divorce, as required by art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 134 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it granted the plaintiff a divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 3 September 2004 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that, on 28 March 2014, the defendant accompanied the plaintiff to Medan for medical treatment. The next day the defendant returned home, leaving the plaintiff at her elder sibling's home. Initially, the parties had remained in contact. After two months, however, the plaintiff telephoned the defendant asking why he had not inquired as to how she was, and why he had not sent her any money. When the plaintiff pushed the issue, it became apparent that the defendant had intended to divorce the plaintiff.

On 4 September 2014, the defendant telephoned the plaintiff, asking her to take him to his parents' home. The plaintiff was unsure, however, for how long the defendant had been living with his parents. When the plaintiff and her parents attended the defendant's parents' home to bring him back to the parties' home, the defendant orally divorced (talak) the plaintiff. Since then the parties' communication had ceased. Moreover, the parties had lived separately since 28 March 2014, and the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. Therefore, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had contravened his marriage vows (sighat taklik talak), per the parties' marriage book (buku nikah), entitling her to divorce the defendant for a fee (iwadh).

Seeking to be exempted from any court fees, the plaintiff also submitted that she was an impecunious person, financially responsible for two children, receiving government-funded health benefits, and the holder of a social security card.

Pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i), as well as exempting her from all court fees.

The parties were married on 7 January 2007 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had been harmonious for the first five years, after which time it had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant would become unnecessarily jealous and accuse the plaintiff of having an extra-marital affair, and, in the event of any minor problem, hit the plaintiff. On one occasion in May 2011, the defendant returned home from work and asked the plaintiff why she was being so quiet. For no apparent reason, the defendant then grabbed the plaintiff by the throat so badly that she struggled to eat for the next week.

The plaintiff returned to her parents' home for three days following the choking incident, before returning to the parties' home, only to find that the defendant had left. In June 2011, the parties reconciled with the help of communal efforts, but this proved to be temporary. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), allow the parties' child to remain in her care, and, owing to her own impecuniosity, exempt her from any court fees.

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. It also granted her custody of the parties' child, and ordered the state to bear her court costs.

The parties were married on 23 June 2006, after which time they had lived in Malang until 2011. From there they had moved to the defendant's parents' home in Sidomulyo, Wonoasri, where they had stayed until 2012, before moving to the plaintiff's parents' home in Banyukambang, Wonoasri until April 2015. The parties had one child (aged 6).

The plaintiff submitted that, since January 2015, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. More specifically, the plaintiff submitted that on one occasion the defendant had returned home from Malang to find that the plaintiff herself had not yet returned home from work. The defendant telephoned the plaintiff to inquire as to her whereabouts, however, the plaintiff's mobile phone was out of battery. When the plaintiff returned home the defendant became angry and hit the plaintiff in front of the parties' child. In April 2015 the defendant left the matrimonial home where he had remained for the nine months leading up to the proceeding. During those nine months the parties had attempted to reconcile their differences but to no avail.

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, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 20 September 1999 and had one child, born on 4 December 2003. For the majority of their marriage they had lived with the plaintiff's parents in Cilacap. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until 2004, after which time it had become quarrelsome because the defendant's refusal to work had left the parties without the financial means required to support themselves and their child.

In December 2005, the plaintiff had relocated to Jakarta to work as a domestic worker (pembantu). Again, in December 2008, the plaintiff relocated to Malaysia as a domestic worker. In December 2010, when the plaintiff returned to Cilacap for 20 days on leave, the parties had continued to quarrel, principally because the defendant had amassed several debts in the plaintiff's absence. The plaintiff sought to repay the defendant's debts while the defendant moved in with his older sibling. On 19 June 2011, when the plaintiff again returned to Indonesia, the defendant expressed no desire to reunite with the plaintiff or their child. Accordingly, the plaintiff, pursuant to art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, in conjunction with art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, noting that the information provided by the two witnesses produced by the plaintiff corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions.

The parties were married on 6 July 2012, after which time they had lived with the defendant's parents, before moving to the plaintiff's parents' home. The parties also had a three and a half month old son. In his vows (sighat taklik talak), the defendant promised to fulfil his spousal obligations and to treat the plaintiff well. Moreover, he stated that the plaintiff may divorce him before a religious court (pengadilan agama) if he ever:

1. left the plaintiff for two consecutive years;
2. failed to provide the plaintiff with financial support for three months;
3. caused the plaintiff any physical or psychological harm; and/or
4. neglected the plaintiff for six months.

The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for the first three years. On 6 October 2015, however, the defendant had left the plaintiff for no apparent reason, never to return. During that time the defendant neither provided the plaintiff with any financial support nor did he communicate with her, contrary to points 2 and 4 of his marriage vows. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her a judicial divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i) of IDR 10,000.

In acceding to the plaintiff's application, the court acknowledged the defendant's absence from court, but also accepted the plaintiff's submissions, as well as the written evidence submitted and the witnesses she produced in court to corroborate her evidence. Pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce for a fee and ordered her to pay costs (IDR 361,000).

The parties were married on 25 June 1999. In his vows (sighat taklik talak), the defendant promised to fulfil his spousal obligations and to treat the plaintiff well. Moreover, he stated that the plaintiff may divorce him before a religious court (pengadilan agama) if he ever:

1. left the plaintiff for two consecutive years;
2. failed to provide the plaintiff with financial support for three months;
3. caused the plaintiff any physical or psychological harm; and/or
4. neglected the plaintiff for six months.

The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for 14 years. On 10 May 2013, however, the defendant had left the plaintiff for no apparent reason, never to return. During that time the defendant neither provided the plaintiff with any financial support nor did he show any care for the plaintiff or communicate with the plaintiff, contrary to points 1, 2 and 4 of his marriage vows. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her a judicial divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i) of IDR 10,000.

In acceding to the plaintiff's application, the court acknowledged the defendant's absence from court, but also accepted the plaintiff's submissions, as well as the written evidence submitted and the witnesses she produced in court to corroborate her evidence. Pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce for a fee and ordered her to pay costs (IDR 706,000).

The parties were married on 3 July 1995. In his vows (sighat taklik talak), the defendant promised to fulfil his spousal obligations and to treat the plaintiff well. Moreover, he stated that the plaintiff may divorce him before a religious court (pengadilan agama) if he ever:

1. left the plaintiff for two consecutive years;
2. failed to provide the plaintiff with financial support for three months;
3. caused the plaintiff any physical or psychological harm; and/or
4. neglected the plaintiff for six months.

The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for 16 years. In May 2011, however, the defendant had left the plaintiff for no apparent reason, never to return. During that time the defendant neither provided the plaintiff with any financial support nor did he show any care for the plaintiff or communicate with the plaintiff, contrary to points 1, 2 and 4 of his marriage vows. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her a judicial divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i) of IDR 10,000.

In acceding to the plaintiff's application, the court acknowledged the defendant's absence from court, but also accepted the plaintiff's submissions, as well as the written evidence submitted and the witnesses she produced in court to corroborate her evidence. Pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce for a fee and ordered her to pay costs (IDR 176,000).

The parties were married on 21 March 2012 and had no children. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for the first eight months. Since August 2013, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. frequently neglected her duties and responsibilities as a wife;
2. frequently left the parties' home for no apparent reason, with no destination in mind, and without the applicant's permission;
3. was frequently stubborn when counselled by the applicant;
4. had accumulated debts unbeknownst to the applicant;
5. had a mother and sibling that frequently meddled in the parties' domestic affairs;
6. was frequently dishonest with the applicant;
7. had uttered the word 'divorce' ('cerai') to the applicant; and
8. had a disharmonious relationship with the applicant's family.

Problems escalated on 25 November 2015 when the applicant suggested that the respondent not leave the applicant's parents' home yet again. The ensuing argument led the applicant to order the respondent to leave his parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the past 13 months. The applicant had made several attempts to reconcile with the respondent, albeit unsuccessfully. The applicant, therefore, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

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 11 October 2009 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, after two years, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial support;
2. would return home in the middle of the night, without first obtaining the plaintiff's permission;
3. was an alcoholic and a gambler;
4. had carried on an extra-marital affair with another woman;
5. would frequently direct unwarranted accusations at the plaintiff that she was having an extra-marital affair herself;
6. had incurred debts unbeknownst to the plaintiff; and
7. had neglected the plaintiff and the parties' child.

On 16 June 2012, after an argument regarding the defendant's outstanding debts, the defendant left the parties' home. He never returned and ceased all communications with the plaintiff. Familial attempts to bring the parties to reconcile their differences had been unsuccessful and, based on the plaintiff's submissions, the plaintiff was resigned to the fact that an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) was the only feasible option remaining.

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