SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 22 December 1994. At that time the plaintiff was a virgin and the defendant a bachelor. They had lived in their own home and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for 15 years, after which time it had become quarrelsome because the defendant had:

1. failed to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial support to meet daily needs;
2. frequently gambled and used illicit drugs; and
3. frequently beaten the plaintiff and threatened her with a knife.

On 8 October 2014, the defendant left for Jakarta for two months, during which time he failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. When the plaintiff requested a divorce, the defendant returned to Takengon and threatened the plaintiff with a knife. Since that incident the parties had remained separated (for the past four months). Believing the parties had no other option but divorce, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

After hearing from the plaintiff's witnesses, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. 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, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties. The court also noted accepted evidence from the plaintiff that the defendant had previously been arrested for physically assaulting the plaintiff (domestic violence) on 28 June 2012.

The parties were married on 23 January 1986. Before marrying, the applicant was a bachelor and the respondent a virgin. They had lived with the respondent's parents for a year before moving into their own home in Kuala Simpang Ulim. While they had 11 children, their marriage had been quarrelsome after one year. The applicant submitted that this was because the respondent:

1. would ignore his advice;
2. was not a competent homemaker; and
3. when the parties would quarrel, would go quiet, thus making it difficult to resolve the problem.

On 19 April 2010, the parties separated after yet another argument. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had failed and the applicant, accordingly, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The respondent refuted the applicant's submissions, stating that it was the applicant who instigated their arguments, and that she would go quiet in order to prevent arguments. The respondent also stated that if the applicant were to divorce her she would require IDR 50,000 per day for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted).

After corroborating the applicant's submissions with information provided by two of the applicant's witnesses, 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 applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties. The court also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 500,000 for iddah.

The parties were married on 22 October 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome after just one month because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide sufficient financial support to meet the parties' daily domestic needs;
2. had failed to obtain stable employment;
3. had failed to show his appreciation for the plaintiff as his wife, even physically assaulting her on a regular basis; and
4. had a temperamental nature and would often become angry with the plaintiff, often over insignificant matters.

The parties had subsequently been separated since 6 May 2016, after the plaintiff returned to her parents' home no longer able to cope with the defendant's treatment of her. The plaintiff submitted that she had concluded she had no other option but to irrevocably divorce the defendant (talak satu ba'in sughra). The plaintiff also requested that the parties' child remain in her care for the sake of the child's own welfare.

Despite the defendant's absence, 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. The court, pursuant to arts 105(a) and 156(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, also granted the plaintiff custody of the parties' children on the grounds that one of the children was still below the age of 12 (belum mumayyiz), and that it was in the best interests of the other children to remain in the plaintiff's care.

The parties were married on 19 May 2003, after which they lived with the plaintiff's parents in Banda Aceh for two years, until the end of 2005. In 2006 they moved, and had lived in Banda Aceh until 2015, during which time they had had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had lived harmoniously until 2008, after which time they had begun to quarrel regularly, because the defendant:

1. frequently left the matrimonial home, only to return the next morning, if at all, without showing any regard for the plaintiff and their children, and if the defendant did return home, he would often be angry with the plaintiff for no apparent reason;
2. frequently physically assaulted the plaintiff, and would even, oven minor matters, resort to physical violence, hitting and kicking the plaintiff;
3. showed no care for the plaintiff and their children whatsoever, rather, prioritising himself over domestic needs such as costs associated with the parties' children.

The plaintiff informed the court that she had previously filed an application for a judicial divorce with the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court on 3 October 2011, however, had withdrawn that application after reconciling with the defendant. Moreover, that between the parties they had reached a reconciliation agreement (perjanjian damai) on 11 July 2002 before Chief Justice Drs. H. Idris Budiman. As the defendant had failed to maintain his end of the bargain, the plaintiff submitted that she had legal grounds to file an application for judicial divorce. The plaintiff also sought IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance.

In the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in shughra), acknowledging that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and surat Al-rum verse 21, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) homelife was no longer feasible. Moreover, that ongoing conflict between the parties was sufficient reason to grant a divorce, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

In regards to their children, the court found that while they remained the joint responsibility of the parties, the plaintiff would be better placed to rear and educate them given their still being pre-pubescent (belum mumayyiz). This also accorded with the requirement contained in art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court emphasised its belief that a mother would be more patient and meticulous in raising the children, and that to separate them from the plaintiff would be incredibly problematic given their age. The court also cited art 59(2) of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights, which acknowledges the rights and needs of children to maintain a personal relationship with their father. Accordingly, it granted the defendant visitation rights, as well as the right to be consulted regarding his children's education and development, as contained in art 26(1) of Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection. The court did not accede to the plaintiff's request for IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance, but instead ordered the defendant to pay to the plaintiff IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance.

The parties were married on 15 May 1990 and had two children (aged 19 and 14), both of whom were in the care of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until 1992, after which time the plaintiff learned from the defendant's sibling visiting from Tual, Southeast Maluku, that the defendant already had a wife in Tual. While the defendant had denied the allegation, he had also become visibly upset and angry. The plaintiff submitted that she had felt deceived by the defendant, who had maintained at the time the parties married that he was unmarried. The plaintiff had hoped the defendant could be open and honest with her and accountable for his conduct. In 1995, however, when the plaintiff became pregnant with the parties' second child, another woman came to the parties' home. When the plaintiff inquired with the defendant as to who this other woman was, the defendant refused to respond, instead taking all his clothes and leaving the plaintiff and the parties' home. It turned out, the plaintiff submitted, that the woman was the defendant's third wife, who the defendant had recently married, unbeknownst to the plaintiff.

A month later the defendant returned to the parties' home. At that time the parties were living in a rental property. Not long after the defendant returned, however, in 1999, another woman came to the parties' home. This time, when the plaintiff asked the defendant who the woman was, the defendant chased the plaintiff and the parties' children out of the rental property. It later turned out that the woman was the defendant's fourth wife, who he had also recently married, again, unbeknownst to the plaintiff.

Three months later the defendant summoned the plaintiff to return to the rental property. The plaintiff obliged. In 2004, however, the defendant left the home for four months. When the plaintiff telephoned the defendant to ask why he had not yet returned, he replied that he was hiring a car from someone and then planned to live with his sibling in Ambon. When the plaintiff went to the Governor's Office in Ambon to attend to some administrative matters, she met with the defendant's sibling. She asked him whether or not the defendant had been living with him, as the defendant had claimed. The defendant's sibling told the plaintiff that the defendant had never lived with him.

On 24 April 2004, the plaintiff telephoned the defendant, telling him to come home. When the defendant came home, the plaintiff asked him what he wanted. It was then that the defendant told the plaintiff he would later provide her with divorce papers, before taking all his clothes and leaving.

The plaintiff submitted that whenever one of the defendant's wives would come to the parties' home, the defendant would become verbally aggressive and use inappropriate language with the plaintiff. Having suffered emotionally for an extended period of time, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court acknolwedged that the parties' marriage was in an irreparable state and no longer constituted a joyful and everlasting domestic life, per art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life, per art 3 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 acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The cassation applicant had married the deceased in 1997. She had one daughter from her previous marriage (her first husband had passed away), and the deceased had four children (first-fourth cassation respondents) from his first wife (fifth cassation respondent). The cassation applicant and the deceased never had any children. After the deceased passed away on 27 December 2011, ownership of their property came into question. The cassation applicant and the deceased obtained the property in 2003, five years into their marriage, and the cassation applicant sought: 50 per cent in her favour, the other 50 per cent split between the five cassation respondents. At the time of trial, the first cassation respondent was in possession of the property, valued to be worth IDR 500 million. The cassation applicant claimed the cassation respondents had not transferred to her half of the property, and based her cassation appeal on the following:

1. As the wife of the deceased, she should enjoy certain inheritance rights;

2 and 3. That while she incorrectly brought a joint asset action, rather than an inheritance claim, prior to the deceased's death, her inheritance claim should still stand;

4. That such an inheritance claim still details the division of joint assets;

5. That the appellate court had shown no interest in examining the case file and her reasons for appeal;

6.1 That the appellate court had applied the law incorrectly insofar as it had failed to properly assess the cassation applicant's additional documentary evidence, most notably that the property had been purchased prior to the cassation respondents selling the joint land of the deceased and the fifth cassation respondent (first wife of the deceased); and

6.2 That the cassation applicant would lodge an inheritance claim if her appeal in this instance were dismissed.

The Supreme Court acceded to the cassation appeal concurring that, while the cassation applicant had incorrectly filed a claim based on joint assets, rather than inheritance, the cassation respondents had also made formulaic errors in their submissions, including incorrectly making the fifth cassation respondent a party to the proceeding. Also, the court agreed that the lower court had failed to consider crucial evidence produced by the cassation applicant regarding ownership of the property.

The parties were married on 21 January 1994 and had four children (aged 19, 17, 12 and 7). Initially, their marriage was harmonious; however, by December 2010, it had become quarrelsome. The cassation respondent had claimed that:

1. the parties could not reconcile their differences;
2. the cassation applicant could not commit to Islam (despite having converted to Islam from Christianity to marry the cassation respondent, he then, in 2006, reverted to Christianity, only to convert to Islam again in 2011);
3. the cassation applicant had not provided her with financial support for the last three years.

Problems escalated and, in April 2011, the parties separated. The cassation applicant, in the first instance, requested the local religious court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in Shughro). In Decision 1048/Pdt.G/2013/PA.Kab.Kdr (18 September 2013), the lower court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, and ordered her to pay IDR 691,000 in court costs.

The cassation applicant then lodged an appeal with the Surabaya High Religious Court (3427/Pdt.G/2013/PT.Sby), which upheld the judgment of the Kediri Religious Court.

On 11 February 2014, the cassation applicant submitted a request for cassation to the Supreme Court based on the following grounds:

1. that the Surabaya High Religious Court had applied the law incorrectly, granting a divorce despite the cassation respondent's claim for divorce not being established with any legitimate evidence;
2. that the aforementioned evidence was inadequate because the marriage was actually stable and harmonious; and
3. that the cassation respondent's true motive for divorce was to be with her boyfriend, while the interests of the parties' children were not adequately considered by the court.

Pursuant to art 30 of Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, as amended by Law No. 5 of 2004 and Law No. 3 of 2009, the court upheld the decision of the Surabaya High Religious Court, dismissing the defendant’s reasons for cassation, and ordering him to pay court costs (IDR 500,000).

The parties were married on 8 January 2006 and had three children. Before moving to their own home, they had first lived with the respondent's parents for three months, and then the applicant's parents for six months. The applicant submitted that, by July 2006, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the parties once quarrelled because the applicant left the matrimonial home to attend a wedding because the bride and groom had hired his soundsystem;
2. in 2007, the parties quarrelled because the applicant had left for Kupang to be with his parents who were farewelling the applicant's sibling who was returning home to Java - the respondent objected to the applicant doing so, even becoming angry with the applicant and his parents;
3. in 2008, the parties quarrelled again when the applicant opened an internet cafe in Atambua, which resulted in the applicant often not returning home until the evening, the respondent becoming angry with the applicant, directing profanities at the applicant and even threatening to stab him with a knife;
4. at the end of 2008, the respondent would often conduct herself in an impolite manner, failing to show any appreciation for the applicant as her husband, even being impolite towards the applicant's parents; and
5. in October 2012, when the applicant wanted to leave for Betun to mourn the loss of a friend, the applicant had objected.

As a result, the parties had been separated since October 2012, the applicant living in Atambua, while the respondent had been living in Halilulik. The applicant submitted that it was no longer feasible for the parties to create a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) domestic life and, therefore, sought a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The respondent rejected all of the applicant's submissions, submitting that the marriage could be salvaged, and that the court should dismiss the applicant's request for a divorce.

The court acknowledged that the parties' evidence conflicted. It also noted, however, that the applicant had already failed, on two occasions, to produce two witnesses to attest to his submissions. Therefore, citing Kitab Al Muhadzdzab Juz II, page 320, the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence meant his request had to be dismissed.

The parties were married on 8 March 1999, after which they lived in a rental property for three years, before moving to their own home. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had been happily married for 13 years and had two children. By December 2009, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome after the defendant had had an extra-marital affair with a woman named Ega from West Java. The plaintiff submitted that she had learned about the affair from a work colleage of the defendant, and after conducting her own investigations, had confirmed what she had been told. By December 2011, the parties had begun to quarrel again after the defendant had had another extra-marital affair, this time with a woman named Yuli from Biudukfoho (the parties' maid). On 29 March 2012, the parties quarrelled yet again after the defendant received a phone call and SMS around 11:30pm from another woman. When the plaintiff inquired with the defendant as to who the woman was, the defendant told the plaintiff she was a caregiver at an orphanage in Kupang, which the defendant had coincidentally frequented.

As a result of the defendant's conduct, the parties had been separated since 30 March 2012. The plaintiff requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) in order to bring this unfortunate set of circumstances to an end. The plaintiff also sought IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance from the defendant, whose salary was IDR 3.5 million per month.

The court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. It acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The plaintiff later withdrew her claim for child maintenance payments, but the Court did grant her custody of the parties' two children.

The parties were married on 26 May 2000 and had three children. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until June 2012, after which time it had become quarrelsome because the respondent had had an extra-marital affair. The applicant learned of the affair after noticing the respondent telephoning the other man from various places such as the parties' bedroom, the bathroom, and kitchen, sometimes in the middle of the night. The applicant also submitted that the respondent would wait until the applicant was asleep before calling the other man, and would even take their son Iqbal with her when she would meet him.

Problems escalated in August 2012 when the respondent forbade the respondent from seeing or telephoning this other man. The respondent maintained that he was merely a friend and became angry with the applicant. The applicant then left the matrimonial home and moved to his parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the three years leading up to the proceeding. Familial intervention had failed to make the parties reconcile, and the applicant sought the court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

The respondent's counterclaim included requests for:

1. IDR 25 million to cover her expenses for the four-year period the parties were separated;
2. IDR 3 million for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted);
3. a prayer (sholat) instrument as mut'ah (divorce compensation); and
4. IDR 3 million per month for child maintenance.

The applicant, in response, offered:

1. two motorcycles for the four-year period the parties were separated, as these were acquired during the parties' marriage;
2. IDR 1.5 million for iddah;
3. a prayer instrument as mut'ah, as requested; and
4. IDR 2.4 million per month for child maintenance.

The court acceded to the applicant's request, 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. With regards to the respondent's counterclaim, the court, noting that the applicant's average monthly wage was IDR 5 million, ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent the following:

1. IDR 15 million for the four-year period;
2. IDR 3 million for iddah;
3. a prayer instrument; and
4. IDR 3 million per month in child maintenance.

The parties were married on 20 June 1975 and their marriage certificate was issued the following day. They had first lived with the applicant's parents and the respondent's parents before moving to their own home in Langsa. The parties had five children and had been happily married for 35 years. Since June 2010, however, their marriage had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent believed the applicant was not providing her with enough financial support. Moreover, the respondent did not agree with the applicant wanting to take another wife and would, therefore, frequently ask the applicant for a divorce. Problems escalated in November 2014 and the parties chose to sleep in separate beds. Familial intervention had failed to make the parties reconcile and the applicant believed that a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) was the best option.

In her oral response to the applicant's submissions, the respondent submitted that actually:

1. the parties had quarrelled since 1989, not over finances but because the applicant had, while married to the respondent, married two other women without first obtaining the respondent's permission; and
2. problems had escalated in November 2014 because the respondent had learned that the applicant had already married yet another woman.

The respondent told the court that she did not object to the applicant's request to divorce her but she demanded IDR 9 million in backdated financial support for the previous six months, as well as IDR 4.5 million for iddah (three-month period after which divorce has been granted). In response to these demands, the applicant submitted that he should only provide the respondent with IDR 3.6 million for the previous six months and IDR 1.8 million for iddah because the respondent already made IDR 1.5 million per month working on a palm oil plantation.

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 applicant's request by granting him a revocable divorce (talak satu' raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. It also partially acceded to the respondent's demands by granting the following:

1. IDR 4.5 million in backdated maintenance; and
2. IDR 2.25 million for iddah.

The applicant submitted that the parties were married on 20 July 2007 and had two children. For the first five years their marriage had been harmonious but, by the end of 2012, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. was unsatisfied with the applicant's monthly salary;
2. had forbade the applicant from meeting with his parents and relatives and providing them with money;
3. had frequently directed profanities at the applicant and would request a divorce whenever the parties would quarrel.

On 7 August 2016, when the applicant returned home at around 10.00pm, the respondent directed further profanities at the applicant. The applicant then left the parties' home and returned to his family's home. The parties had remained separated for approximately two months since. The applicant's advice to the respondent had failed to change her behaviour and attitude. Believing the purpose of marriage, that being a peaceful, hopeful and loving family, was no longer attainable, the applicant requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

In her oral response in court, the respondent concurred with the majority of the applicant's submissions. The respondent did not, however, concur with the applicant's submission that the respondent had forbade him from providing his parents with money. Rather, she had only said that his salary was insufficient to meet their own needs as it was. The respondent submitted that her family had attempted to make the parties reconcile but that the applicant and his family had failed to respond to their initial attempts. Furthermore, the respondent submitted that she did not want the applicant to divorce her. If the applicant's request for a divorce were successful, however, the respondent requested that the applicant pay her:

1. IDR 1.2 million per month for three months (IDR 3.6 million) in unpaid spousal maintenance for the time the parties had already been separated;
2. IDR 1 million per month for three months (IDR 3 million) for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted);
3. a gold ring as divorce compensation (mut'ah); and
4. IDR 600,000 per month in child maintenance for their two children until they were adults and independent.

In response, the applicant submitted that he could only afford:

1. IDR 3 million in unpaid spousal maintenance;
2. IDR 900,000 for iddah; and
3. no divorce compensation (mut'ah).

In dismissing the applicant's request, the court justified its decision on the grounds that the parties had already been physically intimate with one another.

In Danial Latifi & Anr v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India (the “Court”) considers whether the Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Divorce Act, 1986 (“the Act”) abrogates its ruling in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and Others (“Shah Bano”).[1] In Shah Bano, the Court held that divorced Muslim women unable to support themselves have a right to lifetime maintenance under Section 127 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, which does not conflict with Muslim Personal Law[2] ostensibly limiting rights to mahr[3] and maintenance during the period of iddat.[4] [5] In Danial Latifi, the Court holds that the Act did not overturn Shah Bano, but instead that divorced Muslim women who are unable to maintain themselves are entitled to receive a one-time lump sum payment during the period of iddat sufficient for lifetime maintenance. The Court chiefly justifies this ruling by arguing that abrogating Shah Bano, would violate various constitutional rights of Muslim women. The Court also makes prudential arguments concerning the impact of abrogating Shah Bano on divorced Muslim women’s economic circumstances, and moreover holds that abrogation would be contrary to Islamic law.

[1] Danial Latifi & Anr v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740 (India).

[2] India has a uniform criminal code, but different personal codes addressing family law for various religious communities. This dual system is very controversial in India.

[3] A sum agreed upon prior to marriage to be given to a wife in two parts (one deferred and one immediate).

[4] The roughly three-month period where re-marriage is forbidden to divorced women.

[5] Shah Bano produced political backlash resulting in the passage of the Act referenced above, with the intention of overturning the ruling. See supra note 1.

The fatwa is a unanimous decision by forty Muslim muftis, affiliated with the Sunni Ittehad Council in Pakistan, declaring honor killing of women as “un-Islamic” or heresy (kuffur) and an “unpardonable sin” (gunah-e-qabir). The decree explicitly states that burning a woman alive, in the name of honor, for marrying a person of their choosing, is heresy and against the commands of Islam. The fatwa quotes a Quranic verse, verse number 232 of Surat al-Baqarah: [translated from the Urdu translation of the verse – as used in the fatwa – into English] “Oh woman’s family, do not say no to women for wanting to marry the husband [of their choice] if the two of them have consented to the marriage.” The fatwa states that Islam is the true guardian of rights of women and that it is imperative upon the leaders of an Islamic nation/government (hukumat) to ensure protection of women’s rights. For that purpose, the government should pass and implement laws that make burning and killing of women an unpardonable crime. The oppression and torture unleashed upon women has no relation to Islam. The fatwa then refers to an example (sunna) of the Prophet Muhammad, as narrated in Sahih-Bukhari: The Prophet (s.a.w.) terminated the marriage contract (nikkah) of a woman who complained to him (s.a.w.) that she did not like the man her father had married her off to. The fatwa condemns the act of burning alive or killing one’s child for marrying someone of their choice and then “appeals” to the parents to focus on the ethical education and upbringing of their children in line with the teachings of Islam; and that the upcoming month of Ramadan will be devoted to raise awareness about women’s rights. Finally, the fatwa states that those who burn women and girls alive should be hanged to death.

The particular newspaper reporting (in Roznama Dunya) on this fatwa includes the names of twenty four clerics who signed the fatwa (the total number of clerics who joined in issuing the fatwa were forty but the newspaper article explicitly mentions just twenty four names).

The parties were married on 23 December 2007 and had one child, born on 4 March 2008. They had lived with the respondent's parents for approximately three years. The applicant submitted, however, that, since September 2009, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent:

1. had never shown her appreciation for the applicant as the head of the household;
2. was not content with what she had, including the applicant's salary, which she found inadequate;
3. would often become jealous if the applicant returned home late; and
4. when angry, would use inappropriate language with the applicant.

As a result, the applicant had left the matrimonial home and returned to his family's home on 23 September 2009, where he had remained for the 11 months leading up to the proceeding.

The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that the parties' ongoing conflict constituted a sufficient reason to grant the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). Moreover, the court ordered the parties to abide by the terms of their post-marital agreement, which the court held to be binding at law. The agreement pertained to the matrimonial home, use of the proceeds if the home were to be sold, and child maintenance (calculated in accordance with the applicant's salary).

The parties were married on 15 May 2005 and had two children. After marrying, the parties lived in Makassar for approximately five months, before moving to Sengkang for approximately two years, after which the plaintiff returned to Makassar. The defendant had remained in Sengkang managing his business up until the time of the proceeding. The plaintiff submitted that, after approximately three years of marriage, her relationship with the defendant had deteriorated. This was a result of:

1. when quarrelling, the defendant would threaten her with divorce;
2. the defendant would often become angry and use profane language that the plaintiff deemed inappropriate;
3. the defendant was often jealous; and
4. since December 2010, the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any emotional or financial support.

Consequently, the parties had lived separately for the past three years, and rarely communicated.

Despite being summonsed formally, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding. Regardless, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 119(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 15 March 2008 and had two children. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since January 2011, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had a gambling addiction and would return home in the middle of the night;
2. had confessed to the plaintiff that he had had extra-marital affairs with other women; and
3. rarely provided for the plaintiff and their children.

In January 2011, the plaintiff left the matrimonial home and returned to her parents' home, remaining there for the time leading up to the proceeding. During this time the parties rarely communicated, leading the plaintiff to file for divorce.

The defendant conceded that the majority of the plaintiff's submissions were true. He qualified, however, that he had had an extra-marital affair upon becoming very emotional seeing the plaintiff being picked up by another man driving an Avanza. The plaintiff acknowledged this but stated the other man was only a friend.

The court, pursuant to s 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and s 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that the parties' ongoing conflict constituted a sufficient reason to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) and, accordingly, acceded to the plaintiff's application.

The parties were married on 1 March 2006 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since April 2010, the marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the defendant was often physically violent towards the plaintiff, so much so that if the defendant were angry and emotional he would beat the plaintiff, leaving her with severe bruising (haematoma);
2. the defendant frequently used profane language that the plaintiff found inappropriate; and
3. the defendant never fulfilled his domestic responsibilities, having not provided for the plaintiff financially since December 2010.

The plaintiff left the matrimonial home in December 2010 and had not returned for the five months leading up to the proceeding.

Despite being formally summonsed, the defendant failed to attend mediation prior to the proceeding, as well as the proceeding itself. Due to the parties' 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 court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shugra).

The parties were married on 11 June 1997 and had lived together for 12 years and three months. The plaintiff submitted, however, that the marriage had become quarrelsome in 2007 as a result of:

1. the defendant not being transparent with his finances and failing to provide the family with sufficient financial support;
2. frequent misunderstandings in all aspects of domestic life, without any foreseeable solution;
3. the defendant's family always meddling in the parties' domestic affairs;
4. the defendant's self-centred attitude towards his children and not being interested in domestic affairs; and
5. the defendant not providing the plaintiff with any emotional support for four years.

The parties separated in February 2010, after the plaintiff could no longer cope with the defendant's behaviour. Despite being summonsed formally, the defendant failed to attend court. The court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba'in Sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 21 March 2001. The plaintiff submitted that, since January 2013, however, the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was a result of the defendant:

1. having had an extra-marital affair with an unmarried woman, of which the plaintiff became aware after reading text messages between the defendant and the other woman, as well as seeing the two spending the night at the defendant's parents' home;
2. never providing the plaintiff with financial support for more than 10 consecutive years; and
3. often leaving their home for days on end, claiming it was due to his work when it was not.

Problems escalated in April 2014, with the defendant saying he was leaving because of work, only never to return. Despite being formally summonsed, the defendant was absent from court. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.