SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 3 November 2012. The applicant submitted that, since the beginning of 2013, he and the respondent had quarrelled regularly. This was the result of:

1. the respondent's stubbornness and selfishness;
2. the respondent often directing profanities at the applicant; and
3. the respondent requesting a divorce from the applicant.

Problems escalated and, on 5 February 2013, the parties separated, the respondent moving to her parents' home. After the judges counselled the parties, however, the applicant stated that he wished to reconcile with the respondent and, accordingly, withdrew his case. The court ordered the applicant to pay costs.

The appellant was granted a revocable divorce before the Langsa Shari'a Court. In her counterclaim before the lower court, however, the respondent was granted the following: IDR 3 million (iddah); IDR 2 million (mut'ah); custody of the parties' six children; IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance paid by the appellant; and 50 per cent of what the lower court determined to be the parties' joint estate (the appellant being granted the other 50 per cent).

The Court found the judgment of the lower court to be sound, making only slight, inconsequential amendments to the original decision.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Takengon Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the lower court. Specifically, the Court also dismissed the appellant's objection to the respondent producing a family member as a witness in court, stating the respondent was within her rights to do so, per art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The Court, however, dismissed the appeal, citing witness evidence that the parties' regular quarrelling had resulted in them separating for approximately eight months, thereby invoking art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The Court also referenced the lower court judge's unsuccessful attempts to counsel the parties to reconcile.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Idi Shari'a Court, which had found the appellant not to be a suitable opponent, and had affirmed the original decision made in the appellant's absence to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce.

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court, citing the parties' three-year separation as proof that their differences were irreconcilable. It also found that the appellant had failed to lodge his application in absentia within the specified grace period for opposition.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Kutacane Shari'a Court (lower court), which had determined the parties' marriage to be lawful, and granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra). The lower court had also deemed several parcels of land to be joint assets of the parties and ordered that they be split on a 50/50 basis.

The Court found no fault with the lower court's reasoning or decision, but opted to improve the formulation of its decision.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), as well as custody of the parties' son. The lower court also ordered the appellant to provide the respondent with monthly child maintenance to cover the child's living costs and school fees until the child was of age and independent.

The Court dismissed the appeal, only making minor amendments to the wording of the lower court's judgment.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), as well as custody of the parties' son. The lower court had also ordered the appellant to provide the respondent with monthly child maintenance to cover the child's living costs and school fees until the child was of age and independent.

The Court dismissed the appeal, only making minor amendments to the wording of the lower court's judgment.

The Langsa Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), custody of the parties' three children, and ordered the appellant to pay IDR 500,000 per month in child maintenance until the children were of age and independent.

The Court found no material fault with the decision, accordingly dismissing the appeal. It did, however, order the lower court's registrar to send a copy of the decision to the relevant Office of Religious Affairs.

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

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

The fatwa states that:

1. Islam acknowledges that legitimate offspring is a child born from parents in wedlock;
2. adopting a child with the understanding that s/he then becomes divorced from his/her biological parents is contrary to Islam;
3. child adoption is permissible under Islam for the purposes of raising, caring for, and educating a child, but does not change the child's biological or religious status; and
4. adoption of an Indonesian child by a non-Indonesian citizen is contrary to art 34 of the 1945 Constitution, and diminishes national pride.

In this child custody dispute case between divorced parents who had married pursuant to Islamic law in Morocco, the court granted the defendant's motion and ordered that the child need not be sent back to the United States, as the child was taken abroad lawfully, under the laws of New Jersey and of the United States. In any event, and although the court did not consider Moroccan and Islamic law, the court ruled that international rules of comity would have dictated a similar conclusion.

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 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 20 November 2011 and had one child. The applicant submitted, however, that, since January 2014, the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was a result of:

1. the respondent often going out at night for no apparent reason and without the applicant's permission; and
2. the respondent ignoring the advice and wishes of the applicant.

Problems escalated in June 2014 when the respondent no longer showed any appreciation for the applicant as the head of the household. This led to the the respondent leaving the matrimonial home with the applicant's blessing. The parties had remained separated for approximately two months leading up to the divorce proceeding. Despite being summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend the proceeding.

Due to the ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Sigli Shari'a Court (lower court), which had determined the parties' marriage in 1993 to be lawful, and granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The Court found a discrepancy between the lower court's report, particularly its final court report (hearing XIV), and the judgment. The report stated that the appellant was absent from court at the time the decision was handed down, while the judgment itself stated that both parties were in attendance. If the appellant had been present at the time of judgment, his appeal application would be invalid due to late submission (20 days after judgment had been handed down).

The Court held that, in the case of such a discrepancy, the court report prevails because it is inseparable from the decision itself. The Court also found, however, that the decision of the lower court was sound and met all legal requirements. Accordingly, while it accepted the appellant's application to appeal, it upheld the lower court's ruling to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Meureudu Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), and ordered the respondent to return half of her dowry (mahar) to the appellant.

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court, but also acknowledged that in his appeal, the appellant had objected to the way in which information provided by one of his witnesses had been appropriated by another party. The Court noted, however, that this was not problematic as the proceeding before the lower court was its own proceeding. Moreover, the Court emphasised that the relationship between the two parties was already at an end, and that to perpetuate the relationship when the parties would continue to quarrel would be worse than granting a divorce. Similarly, to place blame on one of the parties was not what was envisaged by art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, the focus of which was on the actual disintegration of a marriage itself.

The parties were married on 6 August 1998 and had one child (aged 13). The plaintiff submitted that, in March 2013, the defendant had left the plaintiff with no warning and had never returned, providing the plaintiff with no information as to his whereabouts. Left with no financial support from the defendant, the plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The defendant did not attend court despite being summonsed. The court, pursuant to art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. Moreover, the court held that the parties' marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with arts 2 and 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 241,000).

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Idi Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The appellant strongly objected to the lower court's lack of sensitivity towards the fact that this case, he claimed, came under the jurisdiction of another shari'a court. The Court acknowledged the appellant's concern, noting that, pursuant to art 73(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989, amended by Law No. 3 of 2006, in conjunction with art 132(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the respondent had filed for divorce with the religious court in her new residential jurisdiction, despite the respondent having left the parties' place of residence without the appellant's permission, and relocating to Aceh Timur (East Aceh). As the evidence and reason relating to why the respondent had relocated was dubious, the Court found that the Idi Shari'a Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the hearing at first instance, appointing the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court as the appropriate forum instead.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Meulaboh Shari'a Court (lower court), which had dismissed her application for an irrevocable divorce from the respondent.

In upholding the appeal, the Court impugned the lower court's reasoning that because the parties had been physically intimate in May 2010, that they both, therefore, wished to remain married. Indeed, the Court noted that the parties' physical intimacy was based on biological urges, rather than feelings of love.

The Court also noted the respondent's poor conduct insofar as he would often leave the appellant at home alone, without first informing her, to gamble. While he had declared repeatedly he would reform his behaviour, he had continued to gamble. Moreover, the appellant had had an extra-marital affair. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the Court believed a sufficient reason to grant the appellant a divorce had been established.