SHARIAsource

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 8 February 2010 and had a child who passed away at the age of 3. By the end of 2011 they had begun to quarrel regularly because the respondent intended to move to Malaysia to work, despite the applicant's reluctance to give her his blessing, and that upon the respondent's return to Indonesia in July 2014, she had chosen to stay with her parents rather than return to the applicant. 

The applicant submitted that the parties' differences were irreconcilable and, accordingly, requested a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surah Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to the elucidation of 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, the court granted a divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties' marriage was arranged. After only six days, the parties had begun to argue because:

1. they could not adjust to one another; and
2. the defendant had become romantically involved with another woman.

The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, surat Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to the elucidation of 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, the court granted a divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict. Accordingly, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro).

The parties were married on 23 December 2006. For the first 10 months of the marriage they had lived with the defendant's parents, before moving to the plaintiff's parents' home. They also had one child, who was seven years of age at the time of the proceeding.

After moving in with the plaintiff's parents, however, the marriage had begun to deteriorate. This was a result of:

1. economic difficulties, leading to frequent quarrelling; and
2. the defendant discovering from the plaintiff's mobile phone that she had had an extra-marital affair.

Attempts on the part of the parties' families to make them reconcile had proven unsuccessful, and the parties had lived separately for the four months leading up to the proceeding, during which time their had been no physical intimacy between the parties, and the defendant had provided the plaintiff with no financial support. The plaintiff, believing that the marriage was beyond repair, sought a judicial divorce from the court.

The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surat Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to the elucidation of 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, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 27 April 2008. After marrying, the parties lived happily with the applicant's parents, and had one child. The parties remained happily married until 2009, after which they began to quarrel regularly. The applicant submitted that this was because:

1. the respondent, after giving birth, would become frightened and traumatised if in the presence of the applicant (this remained the case for five years);
2. when the respondent recovered from this condition, if asked about it, she would say she would become scared if she could not please the applicant;
3. in 2010, the applicant relocated to Korea for work but maintained communication with the respondent, but when he returned to Indonesia in 2013, the respondent fell ill again.

As a result, the parties had been separated for the past five years, during which time they had not shared any physical intimacy. The applicant submitted that the marriage was beyond repair and, accordingly, requested that the court grant him a divorce.

The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surah Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to the elucidation of art 37 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of having been apart for longer than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 24 May 2009. They lived together happily with the applicant's parents for five years and four months, but had no children. Since October 2010, however, the parties had begun to quarrel because, due to a cervical tumor, the respondent was unable to fall pregnant. The applicant submitted that this caused him to suffer greatly, and to feel that the parties could no longer remain married. Moreover, the parties had been separated since September 2014, during which time, they had shared no physical intimacy.

The applicant submitted that the parties' differences were irreconcilable and, accordingly, requested a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surah Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to the elucidation of art 37 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, the court granted a divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 28 June 2013. For the first year of their marriage they had lived happily with the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since 2014, the parties' marriage had become disharmonious. She claimed this was a result of:

1. the defendant's jealousy and accusations that the plaintiff was having an extra-marital affair with another man; and
2. the defendant often becoming emotional and angry for no apparent reason, and, while in fits of rage, causing damage to the plaintiff's coffee stall.

The parties had remained separated since July 2014, during which time they had not been physically intimate. Family intervention seeking to make the parties reconcile had been unsuccessful, and the plaintiff, believing the parties' differences to be irreconcilable, sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

Firstly, the court acknowledged the purpose of marriage, as per the Qur'an (surah Al Rum, verse 21), art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, as being a joyful and enduring relationship based on love and the belief in One Almighty God. Acknowledging that the parties' marriage no longer resembled this, and pursuant to the elucidation of art 37 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 plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 361,000).

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act was passed by India's Parliament in 1986, allegedly to protect the economic rights of Muslim women upon divorce. The Act, however, has been controversial as it essentially overrode the Shah Bano judgment and limited the maintenance Muslim women could receive after divorce to the iddat period (a three month period).

The parties were married on 25 February 1998 and had their one and only child on 28 June 1998. In March 1999, the defendant left for Malaysia to work for two years, returning in March 2001, when he then lived at the plaintiff's parents' home for approximately three months. In June 2001, the plaintiff left to work in Taiwan and returned around December 2002. Then in June 2003, the defendant left for Malaysia for another two years to work, returning in June 2005, where he then lived with the plaintiff for approximately 10 months. In April 2006, the plaintiff left for Hong Kong to work for more than three years, returning on 14 November 2009.

Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. In June 2005, however, or since the defendant had returned from Malaysia, the parties had quarrelled regularly, largely because the defendant had only sent the plaintiff money on three occasions. Moreover, upon returning to Indonesia, the defendant refused to work, and the plaintiff could only find work as a waiter at a soto roadside stall (warung). To meet their domestic needs, in April 2006, the plaintiff returned to Hong Kong to work. During this time the defendant had begun to expect that the plaintiff would send money home on a monthly basis. When the plaintiff returned on 14 November 2009, she discovered that the defendant had sold her gold jewellery, as well as their Honda motorcycle. Moreover, the defendant forbade the plaintiff from seeking financial assistance from the defendant's parents, which caused the parties to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff was concerned that the defendant was not being entirely truthful with him. Feeling that their differences were irreconcilable, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce.

Pursuant to art 34(1) 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, as well as Kitab Fiqhus Sunnah Jilid II, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), and ordered her to adhere to 90 days of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted) before marrying again, pursuant to art 39(1)b of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 516,000).

The parties were married on 12 August 2006. Initially the marriage was harmonious. Since September 2013, however, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was due to:

1. the defendant having been an irresponsible husband, i.e. not valuing, respecting, caring for and loving the plaintiff as his wife;
2. the defendant having had extra-marital affairs in October 2006, in 2008, and then again in September 2013; and
3. the plaintiff no longer being able to maintain a domestic partnership with the defendant, resulting in the parties separating on 10 November 2013.

Due to the ongoing conflict between the parties the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (thalak satu ba'in sughro), 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 parties were married on 4 April 2011 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since November 2011, the parties' differences of opinion had affected their marriage. Moreover, the plaintiff submitted that:

1. the parties quarrelled on a regular basis;
2. the defendant had never provided the plaintiff with any financial support from the time of marriage;
3. the defendant did not work;
4. the parties had agreed to divorce before the East Jakarta Religious Court;
5. the parties had already been separated for two and a half years without providing each other any financial or emotional support;
6. the parties had failed to fulfil their spousal responsibilities via-a-vis one another;
7. the plaintiff had already endeavoured to resolve the parties' problems through deliberation and discussion with the defendant, but to no avail; and
8. the parties' problems were irreconcilable and that divorce was the most feasible option.

The defendant was summonsed to appear, but failed to do so. The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and arts 33 and 34 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, as well as on the grounds of the defendant's repudiation of arts 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage vows (sighat ta'lik thalak), pursuant to art 119 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 14 September 2005. They had lived together in the defendant’s parents' home and had one child (aged 7). The plaintiff submitted that:

1. since the parties had married, the defendant had not provided her with any financial support;
2. economic circumstances had forced the plaintiff, in 2011, to earn a living as a migrant worker in Singapore;
3. while the plaintiff was in Singapore the parties had not communicated; and
4. when the plaintiff returned home in 2013, the defendant had not made any effort to communicate with the plaintiff, despite knowing that the plaintiff was visiting, the plaintiff having to sleep at the plaintiff’s parents' home before returning to Singapore to continue working.

The plaintiff submitted that these circumstances had led to irreconcilable disharmony in the marriage, and requested that the court grant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro).

The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surat Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to the elucidation of art 37 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce on the grounds that the parties had been apart for longer than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 5 September 1999, the plaintiff's father acting as the parties' wedding guardian (wali nikah). The parties had two children. The parties' marriage certificate (buku nikah), however, had not been issued, and when the plaintiff inquired with the Sekupang Office of Religious Affairs as to its status, it became apparent that the marriage had never been officially registered.

After the first year of marriage, the plaintiff alleged that the parties had begun to quarrel because the defendant:

1. had not provided the plaintiff and their children with sufficient financial support, only working for himself, without showing any care for the plaintiff and their family;
2. had a temperamental nature, always physically assaulting the plaintiff if the parties had a verbal disagreement;
3. often left the matrimonial home without any reason, returning home in the middle of the night or the next morning;
4. would prioritise himself over the plaintiff and their children, not purchasing the children clothing, for example; and
5. had already divorced (pronounced talak) the plaintiff on 28 April 2003 on paper (with stamp-duty paid).

After divorcing the plaintiff, the defendant had left her and their children, ignoring the plaintiff's attempts to reconcile and reunite. The plaintiff believed that divorce was now the only feasible option. The plaintiff also sought custody of the children, who were already living under her care, the defendant having shown no interest in their well-being.

In ratifying the parties' marriage, the court acknowledged that the plaintiff had submitted a marriage ratification application for the purposes of divorce, pursuant to art 7(3)(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. It also conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 2 July 2010 but had no children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage was initially harmonious. Since September 2012, however, it had deteriorated because:

1. the defendant would often come home in the middle of the night and become enraged if the plaintiff would advise him to conduct himself otherwise;
2. whenever the parties would argue, the defendant would use profane language, leaving the plaintiff feeling no longer appreciated as a wife.

Problems escalated in April 2013, when the defendant had an extra-marital affair with another woman, resulting in the parties quarrelling, and the defendant leaving the plaintiff. For the next two years, the defendant provided the plaintiff with no financial or emotional support, leaving the plaintiff to believe that divorce was the only available option.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 22 September 2008 but had no children. For the first three years of their marriage they had lived in their own home, before moving to live with the defendant's parents. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious, however, since August 2013, it had begun to deteriorate. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant:

1. was unhappy that the parties had not yet conceived a child; and
2. had had an extra-marital affair.

Problems escalated and, on 28 August 2013, the plaintiff moved to her parents' home after receiving a letter from the defendant stating that he divorced her. For the next one year and eight months, the plaintiff submitted that she had attempted to reconcile with the defendant, but to no avail. It followed that the plaintiff believed 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.

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 12 February 2014 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, as early as March 2014, the marriage had begun to deteriorate because the defendant had:

1. refused to work, meaning he could not meet the parties' domestic needs, thereby compelling the plaintiff to work, and the plaintiff's parents to cover their needs; and
2. physically assaulted the plaintiff.

Problems escalated and, in December 2014, the defendant left the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that she had attempted to reconcile with the defendant, but to no avail. It followed that the plaintiff believed 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 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 15 March 2012 but had no children. They had begun to quarrel as early as two months after being married because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. had another wife, which he was dishonest about to the plaintiff;
2. drank alcohol and gambled, often coercing the plaintiff into providing him with money.

Problems escalated in July 2012 as a result of the defendant's selfishness and refusal to resolve matters with his other wife. The defendant left the parties' home, providing the plaintiff with no subsequent financial support. 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, 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.