SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 15 November 2006 and had two children. They had been separated for the past five years and, for the duration of the marriage, the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. The defendant had also displayed alcoholic tendencies, and had failed to care for his children. The plaintiff submitted that divorce was the only feasible option available.

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 Court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage no longer represented a joyful and everlasting union, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) family, as envisaged art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The plaintiff had submitted an application for divorce, as well as this application for joint assets. The parties were divorced on 28 May 2015, having been married for 10 years. Rarely, however, had they displayed any signs of compatibility during those 10 years. The main asset in dispute was the parties' 72m² home in Padang, West Sumatra, which, the plaintiff submitted, the parties had acquired due to the financial assistance provided to them by the plaintiff's parents. More specifically, the plaintiff's parents had provided the parties with IDR 23 million for an initial down-payment to purchase the property, IDR 5 million to repair the foundation of the outhouse, IDR 5 million to build a fence and terrace, IDR 3.5 million to build a garage, IDR 17 million to repair damage caused by an earthquake, and IDR 14.25 million to repay arrears to prevent the home from being auctioned. In total, the plaintiff's parents had outlaid IDR 67.75 million.

After receiving counsel from the court, however, the plaintiff withdrew her application and agreed to resolve the dispute in a familial fashion.

The parties were married on 20 March 1993 at the Office of Religious Affairs in Plupuh, Sragen. After marrying they lived in Sukaramai, Banda Aceh, and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until 18 December 2010, after which the defendant had left the plaintiff and their children for no apparent reason. Despite searching for, as well as inquiring as to the whereabouts of, the defendant, the plaintiff had not been able to locate him. Therefore, the plaintiff sought a judicial divorce from the defendant, as well as custody of the parties' one remaining child still under the age of consent. Owing to her own impecuniosity, the plaintiff also sought dispensation from any court costs.

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, was no longer feasible. Moreover, that the defendant having left the plaintiff for more than two consecutive years was sufficient reason to grant a divorce, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

In regards to their child, the court found that while the child remained the joint responsibility of the parties, the plaintiff would be better placed to rear and educate him given his being underage (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 also acceded to the plaintiff's request that the State bear the costs associated with the proceeding.

Chapters on nominate contracts (endowment, sales, options, barter/ mu‘āwaḍa, hire and lease, partnerships -shirka, muzāra‘a, musāqāt, muḍāraba-, reward/ju‘āla, deposit, fungible and non-fungible loan, agency, financial and personal guaranty, assignment, settlement, pledge, gift), shuf‘a, wills, inheritance, marriage and divorce, mahr, and alimony took almost all of its substance from prominent Shi’i fiqh treatises. Other chapters (classification of properties, easement, usufruct, general rules of obligations and contracts, nationality, registration of civil status, domicile, engagement, guardianship, and evidence) are mainly influenced by Swiss and French Civil Codes and Swiss Code of Obligations.

The applicant submitted that on 30 December 2012, 30 days after marrying the respondent (NB: actual date of marriage was 3 December 2012), the respondent struck the applicant and argued with him for several months. In July 2014, the respondent confessed to having had an extra-marital affair, the respondent then leaving their home without the applicant's permission. Despite trying to reunite with the respondent, even requesting the help of the respondent's family, the applicant claimed their differences were irreconcilable.

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) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Blangkejeren Shari'a Court, which granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). The Court also ordered the respondent to pay the following maintenance to the appellant: IDR 2 million (iddah), IDR 1 million (kiswah), IDR 1.5 million (maskan) and IDR 5.5 million (mut'ah).

The Court noted that the lower court had not determined the issue of child custody, as required under art 41(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The Court ordered the respondent to pay the following increased maintenance to the appellant: IDR 9 million (iddah), IDR 3 million (kiswah), IDR 30 million (mut'ah), IDR 2 million per month in child support until the children reach 21 years of age, and IDR 1.5 million per month to cover the children's school fees.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court, which had:

1. granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra);
2. granted the respondent custody of the parties' two children;
3. ordered the appellant to pay child maintenance monthly until the children are independent; and
4. stipulated the parties' joint assets were to be split 50/50, after a joint-debt of IDR 5 million had been repaid.

For all intents and purposes, the Court concurred with the decision of the lower court. It did, however, decide to prepare its own decision, amending the lower court's reference to the parties' joint-debt.

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 ba'in shughra), placed the parties' child in the respondent's care, and ordered the appellant to pay child maintenance to cover the child's living and educational expenses until the child became of age.

The Court, in large part, concurred with the lower court. In regards to child maintenance, however, notwithstanding that the Court agreed it was the appellant's obligation to provide for the child as the child's father, the Court also acknowledged that the respondent had withdrawn her claim for child maintenance before the lower court. Accordingly, it held that the appellant need not pay child maintenance.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Meulaboh Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shugra), ordered the appellant to transfer the parties' child into the care of the respondent, and ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent IDR 200,000 per month in child maintenance until the child had become of age.

The Court found the reasoning of the lower court to be sound and affirmed its decision, while slightly amending the formulation of the lower court's decision. The Court did, however, disagree with the decision of the lower court insofar as it dismissed the appellant's claim regarding the parties' joint assets. The Court stated it would deal with the appellant's joint assets claim in a separate proceeding.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Lhoksukon Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the appellant and respondent a divorce, but had also stipulated the parties' joint assets as follows: five parcels of land, one house, one motorcycle, and one tonne of wood for building a house (value: IDR 3.2 million).

The Court disagreed with the decision of the lower court insofar as two of the parcels of land, which had been retracted from the respondent's claim, were still included in the lower court's judgment as joint assets. The Court also found that the lower court need not have included price estimates of the parcels of land as prices can change depending on circumstances and time.

The parties were married in 2013. By March 2014, however, their marriage had become quarrelsome and by August 2014 they had separated. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant:

1. had had an extra-marital affair with another woman;
2. often left the plaintiff for his parents' home;
3. did not provide the plaintiff with appropriate financial support; and
4. verbally abused the plaintiff.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the Court was satisfied that the plaintiff had established that the parties' marriage was adversely affected by ongoing conflict and acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra), 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 ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 316,000).

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Langsa Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), but granted custody of the parties' three children to the appellant, and ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant IDR 2.5 million per month in child maintenance until the children become of age. The lower court also stipulated the joint assets of the parties and ordered that they be split on a 50/50 basis.

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court, however, it found fault with the respondent's reasoning in regards to the return of a vehicle to its owner because the respondent could not afford the repayments after only paying IDR 7 million up front. The Court found that the IDR 7 million in question, which had been returned to the respondent, was a joint asset and should be split between the two parties.

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

In dismissing the appeal, the Court affirmed that the parties had continuously quarrelled while married and that laying blame on one of the parties was futile given the objective of marriage, as enunciated in art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975. The Court acknowledged the appellant's efforts to reconcile with the respondent, especially as the parties had children, but also conceded that it could not act as the appellant's saviour (dewa penyelamat) and compel the respondent to reunite with the appellant.

The Bireuen Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), as well as custody of the parties' two children until they had reached mumayyiz (age of discernment) or 12 years of age.

The Court, on the whole, concurred with the lower court's findings. It found, however, that the lower court had erred by failing to specify how much the appellant was to pay the respondent in child maintenance. Indeed, pursuant to arts 105(c) and 156(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the appellant, as the children's father, was obliged to bear their maintenance costs. The Court quantified this as IDR 500,000 per month. It also granted the respondent custody of the parties' children until the children were adults or had reached the age of 21.

The Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce and custody of the parties' two children, and ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance. The lower court also stipulated as joint assets of the parties two properties (one in Aceh, one in North Sumatra), a parcel of land, three vehicles, some household appliances, a debt of IDR 33,333,344 in the name of Yulia Fitri owed to Bank BPD, as well as a debt of IDR 36,979,175 owed to Bank BPD in the name of the appellant. The appellant was also ordered to return to the respondent that part of her dowry (mahar) that he had already used in the form of 16 grams of gold.

The Court found no fault with the lower court's decision and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

The parties were married by a qadhi before two witnesses. They had one child, had never divorced, and the first applicant had not married another woman. While their marriage certificate was in the form of a declaration, they required a court determination acknowledging their marriage as it had had not been registered with the Office of Religious Affairs. This meant that the parties could not obtain a birth certificate for their child, which was required for the child to be registered for school. The parties also required the court determination in order to apply for passports so that they might leave the municipality or even the region.

Citing Bughyatul Mustarsyidin, and finding the information and evidence provided by the applicants to the court affirmed their claim, the court acceded to the applicants' request.

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 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 4 February 2012 but had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, by December 2014, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. would leave the parties' home for days on end; and
2. had married another woman.

At the beginning of November 2015, the defendant left the parties' home for good and had subsequently failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. Therefore, the plaintiff submitted, divorce was the only viable option remaining.

In court, however, the plaintiff submitted verbally that she wished to withdraw her claim as the parties had reconciled and were once again living together.

The parties were married on 5 May 2012 and had one child, who was currently in the care of the plaintiff. On 26 January 2016, the parties had divorced, after which time they had agreed that their child would remain in the care of the plaintiff. In this instance, the plaintiff, in order to alleviate certain difficulties already encountered while trying to enrol the parties' child for school, had lodged an application to amend certain documents. These included the parties' child's family card (Kartu Keluarga) and national identity number (Nomor Induk Kependudukan).

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds that the parties' child was still underage.