SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 26 November 2010, after which they had lived in Malang for five years and had one child. Upon receiving their marriage book (buku nikah) they had realised that it incorrectly stated the second applicant's place of birth was Yogyakarta, when in actual fact it was Sleman. As a result, the second applicant had encountered certain professional administrative obstacles. Accordingly, the applicants sought an amendment to their marriage book.

Pursuant to arts 1870 and 1865 the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata), and arts 1(5) and 34(2) of the Regulation of the Minister of Religion No. 11 of 2007 on Marriage Registration, the court acceded to the applicants' request.

The appellant sought to challenge Decision: 0011/Pdt.G/2014/PA.Bjw of the Bajawa Religious Court (lower court), which had acceded to the respondent's request to revocably divorce the appellant. The lower court had also ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant IDR 300,000 per month for the period of iddah (three-month period after which divorce has been granted), and granted custody of the parties' first child to the respondent. The lower court had also granted the appellant custody of the parties' third and fourth children, as well as ordering the respondent to pay IDR 200,000 per month in child support for the third child until the child had reached adulthood.

The court affirmed the decision of the lower court, but amended the decision in order that the respondent pay to the appellant at least IDR 500,000 per month for the maintenance of the parties third, fourth and fifth children.

The parties were married on 30 March 2001, after having divorced in 1999. They had two children. Several years after remarrying, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly due to differences of opinion. The plaintiff submitted that this problem had not been insurmountable, however, as evidenced by the parties remarrying in 2001 for the sake of their children. Regardless, the parties would often quarrel, the plaintiff submitted, because the defendant had failed to appreciate her as his wife, and because the defendant would exacerbate trivial issues in order to start an argument with the plaintiff. The plaintiff also conceded that she would go quiet when the defendant would start arguing with her because she was embarrassed to be seen arguing with the defendant by the parties' children, their neighbours, and family.

For the past six years the parties had been sleeping in separate beds, after the defendant had chosen to sleep in another room. This had gravely affected the plaintiff. Problems escalated during Eid al-Fitr (Idul Fitri) in 2014 when the defendant confessed to having married another woman without the plaintiff's permission. The plaintiff learned from the defendant that his other wife lived in East Java, and that they had been married for the past two years. When given an ultimatum by the plaintiff, the defendant had chosen to maintain both marriages. As a result, the plaintiff felt there was no other course available but to divorce.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 20 February 2004 and had two children, both of whom were now in the care of the respondent. The applicant submitted that, since June 2013, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent had failed to appreciate the applicant as her husband, often insulting and shaming him, as well as arguing with him. Problems escalated on 7 August 2013, resulting in the parties separating.

The respondent submitted, in response, that much of her behaviour and poor treatment of the applicant was in response to the applicant having had extra-marital affairs since the respondent was pregnant. In compensation for the applicant being granted a divorce, the respondent sought IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance, IDR 6 million for iddah (three-month period following divorce), as well as IDR 150 million for the construction of the parties' home in Panaikang, Pangkep, South Sulawesi, or that the home be registered in the name of the parties' two children. The applicant was content with the parties' children remaining in the respondent's care, but submitted that IDR 500,000 per month in child maintenance, IDR 1.5 million for iddah, and IDR 5 million for the home was sufficient.

The court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975 and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds of ongoing conflict. It granted the respondent custody of the parties' children, however, while ordering the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance, IDR 3 million for iddah, and IDR 5 million in regards to the construction of the home, as the parties had only contributed IDR 10 million towards its construction collectively. It also noted that information provided by witnesses corroborated to suggest that the applicant had indeed been having extra-marital affairs.

The parties were married on 4 August 1991 and had two children. The marriage became quarrelsome, however, after the plaintiff:

1. learned that the defendant had married another person, unbeknownst to the plaintiff;
2. was pushed to the ground by the defendant, injuring her back and hip; and
3. was threatened at gunpoint by the defendant.

While the plaintiff sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughro), the defendant vehemently denied the plaintiff's allegations, submitting that the parties' homelife was still harmonious and quarrel-free.

The court, however, on the evidence, acceded to the plaintiff'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.

The parties were married on 19 March 1988 and had four children. They lived on Java for 11 years, before moving to Balikpapan. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. By 2007, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. was dishonest regarding finances;
2. ignored the applicant if he reminded her to pray (sholat);
3. would overreact if the applicant asked her a question; and
4. had obstetric fistula, which prevented her from being physically intimate with the applicant.

The parties separated on 20 May 2013, after the respondent left the matrimonial home. The applicant submitted that he had suffered emotionally as a result and requested the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The Court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 17 April 2011, had one child, and had lived with the respondent's parents in Balikpapan. The marriage had always been quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. never thought the applicant provided her with sufficient financial support, despite the applicant providing her with his entire monthly salary; and
2. failed to appreciate the applicant as her husband, frequently arguing with what the applicant would say.

Problems escalated in April 2014, resulting in the parties separating, the applicant leaving the respondent's parents' home for his parents' home. The applicant submitted that he had suffered emotionally as a result and wished to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 20 May 2007 and had lived with the respondent's parents. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. By 2012, however, it had become quarrelsome. By mid-2013, the respondent's family had begun to meddle in the parties' domestic affairs. The applicant also submitted that, after six years of marriage, the parties had no children, to the applicant's dismay. By July 2013, the parties had separated, and had agreed to divorce and return to their respective parents' homes.

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 10 October 2010 and had two children. The marriage had been harmonious until November 2013, after which time the parties had begun to quarrel frequently. The applicant submitted that this was because the respondent did not appreciate the applicant as her husband, often flouting the applicant's wishes in public, and had failed to care for the applicant when he was unwell. The respondent had also suggested to the applicant that the parties separate for the sake of the children. Accordingly, the applicant sought a divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 25 October 1991 and had three children. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By December 2008, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. would disrespect the applicant;
2. would often leave the parties' home without telling the applicant; and
3. was unsatisfied with what the applicant could provide.

The applicant submitted that deliberative efforts between the parties to reconcile had failed, and that the parties had been separated since 2009. Accordingly, the applicant sought a divorce (talak satu raj'i) from the respondent.

The Court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The Court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 23 June 2012 and had one child. After marrying, the parties lived with the applicant's parents for one year and five months, before moving to the respondent's parents' home. By 2013 the marriage had already become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted:

1. when the parties lived with the applicant's parents, the respondent would often leave the house without the applicant's permission;
2. the respondent no longer wanted to live with the applicant's parents and insisted on living with her parents; and
3. the respondent never heeded the applicant's advice as her husband.

The applicant submitted that deliberative efforts between the parties to reconcile had failed, and that the parties had slept in separate beds for the past 10 months. Accordingly, the applicant sought a divorce (talak satu raj'i) from the respondent.

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 9 March 2010. On 2 January 2011, the respondent left the applicant without his permission or for any apparent reason, never to return. After conducting his own investigations, the applicant discovered, on 3 December 2013, that the respondent had been living with another man. Having suffered emotionally from the entire experience, the applicant requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 30 August 2006. For the first six months of their marriage they lived in Balikpapan, before relocating to Blitar for one year and nine months. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. After moving to Blitar to live with the defendant's parents, however, the marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant would frequently leave the home in the afternoon and return in the middle of the night intoxicated. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant would physically assault her on a regular basis. In 2007, the defendant verbally divorced the plaintiff three times, one in Balikpapan, and twice in Blitar. For the duration of the marriage, the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any money, the parties having to rely on the plaintiff's father for financial support. The plaintiff submitted that, unable to cope with the defendant's treatment of her, she had decided to return to her parents' home in Balikpapan. She requested that the court grant her a divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i).

Pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, noting that the plaintiff had established that the defendant had neglected his spousal obligations, and breached his marriage vows (taklik talak). The court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 4 June 1977 and had three children. The applicant submitted that the marriage had been harmonious until 5 March 2014, after which time the respondent refused to comply with the applicant's wish to sell the family home. The applicant maintained that he had wished to sell the home to provide his family with financial security following his own retirement. For the past two months, the parties had been sleeping in separate rooms, and the applicant's efforts to reconcile with the respondent had been in vain. Accordingly, he requested that the court grant him a divorce (talak).

In dismissing the applicant's request, the court found that the problem between the parties was not insurmountable, and that the respondent's lack of compliance with the applicant's wishes was because the applicant had intended to sell the family home, unbeknownst to the respondent. Moreover, the court believed it more important to save the parties' marriage, which had already survived the test of time. The court found 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, that being a happy and joyful family based on the principle of One Almighty God, was not lost. In addition, the applicant's grounds for divorce, being ongoing conflict pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was unfounded.

The parties were married on 7 September 2005 and had two children. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. By the beginning of 2012, however, it had become quarrelsome as the defendant would become unnecessarily suspicious of the plaintiff, and stopped providing her with financial support. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant would also drink excessively and, when intoxicated, become argumentative. While the plaintiff tolerated the defendant's behaviour for the sake of maintaining the marriage, in February 2014, during an argument, the defendant struck the plaintiff, caused damage to the parties' home, and took all of the plaintiff's clothes to his parents' home.

In March 2014, the plaintiff and her parents relocated to Tobelo, the plaintiff no longer being able to cope with the defendant's behaviour. For the past year the parties had remained separated, the defendant providing the plaintiff with no financial support during that year. Accordingly, the plaintiff, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

In the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, concurring with the plaintiff that the marriage was indeed beyond repair.

The parties were married on 18 July 2012 and had one child. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By the beginning of 2014, however, when the plaintiff enrolled in an undergraduate university degree, the parties began to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant would become unnecessarily jealous, and intoxicated frequently. The defendant also had an aversion to praying (sholat) and fasting. In May 2014, after another argument, the defendant left the parties' home, since which time the parties had remained separated. During those seven months the defendant had also failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. The plaintiff, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The court, pursuant to art 19(a) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(a) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of both the defendant's alcoholism and ongoing conflict. It also acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, being a happy and joyful domestic life, as prescribed in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as a peaceful, hopeful and loving marriage, as contained in art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and verse 21 of the Qur'an, Surat Ar-Rum, was no longer feasible.

The parties were married on 14 September 1987 and had four children. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. By August 2004, however, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant had a tendency to become jealous, which often became the source of an argument. In December 2014, when the plaintiff returned home late one night, the defendant accused her of having been in the company of another man. The defendant then struck the plaintiff in the cheek and shoulder. In the beginning of June 2015, the defendant accused the plaintiff of having an extra-marital affair, which the plaintiff denied. In the ensuing argument, the defendant threatened to kill the plaintiff and throw hydrochloric acid in her face. Since then, the parties had slept in separate rooms, and the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support.

Feeling unable to cope any longer with the defendant's behaviour, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra). 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 parties were married on 22 May 1999 and had four children. For the first seven years of their marriage the parties lived in Sinabang, before the plaintiff returned to her parents' home in Kuala Makmur in November 2007. By May 2005, the marriage had become quarrelsome after the defendant had an extra-marital affair. Problems escalated on 14 November 2007 when the plaintiff learned that the defendant had married another woman. The plaintiff submitted that she had returned to her parents' home after the defendant married this other woman because he had no longer shown any care or regard for her and their children. Moreover, for the past eight years the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support. Accordingly, she requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) and, owing to her own impecuniosity, waive any court fees.

The court, pursuant to 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 of the parties having been apart for two years or more and ongoing conflict respectively. It also determined that the court fee would be borne by the state.

The parties were married on 22 August 2008 and had two children, who were now in the plaintiff's care. The parties lived in the village of Sembilan before, in March 2014, the plaintiff moved to Ameria Bahagia and the defendant to Damai Makmur. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By March 2010, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had begun to smoke marijuana and gamble, among other illicit (haram) activities.

Problems escalated in March 2015 when it was discovered that the defendant had sold his motorcycle for IDR 3 million to his brother to feed his gambling addiction. When the plaintiff confronted the defendant over this he grabbed a machete, seemingly with the intent to kill the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently moved to her grandfather's home in Ameria Bahagia.

Unable to cope any longer with the defendant's behaviour, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), and, owing to her own impecuniosity, waive 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 determined that the court fee would be borne by the state.

The parties were married on 8 December 2014 and had one child, who passed away at three months. As early as January 2015, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant would frequently compare the plaintiff with his first wife. On 12 July 2015, it became apparent to the plaintiff that the defendant was not accepting of her children from her first marriage, prioritising his own child (from his first marriage), even becoming physically violent towards her children. On 20 October 2015, when the defendant's child verbally insulted the plaintiff in front of the defendant, the defendant sided with his own child, leading to yet another disagreement between the parties. This led to the plaintiff leaving the matrimonial home for a rental property in Karya Budi, Suka Karya. While the plaintiff lived in this rental property, the defendant never came to visit her, nor did he seek to reconcile their differences, or provide the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support.

Unable to cope any longer with the defendant's behaviour, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra). In 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.