SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 28 October 2007, after which they had lived with the defendant's parents. The parties also had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, by the end of 2012, the parties' marriage was no longer harmonious because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair with another woman by the name of Yustika. The defendant's duplicity had become a source of tension between the parties, even moving the defendant to express his desire to divorce the plaintiff. By January 2013 both parties had returned to their respective parents' homes. The plaintiff submitted that, since the parties' separation, the defendant had contacted her to inform her that he had remarried. The plaintiff also requested that, owing to her own impecuniosity, the Court waive any procedural court costs.

In the defendant's absence, the Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21. 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. It also ordered the state to bear the plaintiff's court costs.

The parties were married on 15 May 2014, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents for three months before moving to their own accommodation. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2014, the parties had frequently quarrelled because the defendant:

1. had not permitted the plaintiff to adhere to a family planning program;
2. had not permitted the plaintiff to see her family; and
3. had forced the plaintiff to leave their accommodation when they would argue, even disposing of the plaintiff's clothes.

Consequently, the plaintiff had been living with her parents, while the defendant had remained in the parties' accommodation. It followed that the plaintiff sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

In the defendant's absence, the Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21. 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 parties were married on 24 December 1995, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents for three days, before departing for Irian Jaya, where they lived for three years, before then returning to Atambua. The parties had four children. The plaintiff submitted that, since October 2005, the parties had frequently quarrelled because the defendant:

1. gambled frequently, ignoring the plaintiff's advice to stop;
2. would ignore the plaintiff's suggestions; and
3. had repudiated his responsibilities towards his children and the plaintiff as a financial provider.

The parties had been separated for the past 10 years and the plaintiff requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21. 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. While not part of the plaintiff's submissions, it also found that the quarrelling between the parties was akin to domestic violence and, pursuant to arts 5(d) and 9 of Law No. 23 of 2004 on the Abolition of Domestic Violence, had to be stopped immediately.

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 14 April 2006 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the defendant's ex-wife had telephoned saying she intended to borrow IDR 9 million, but the plaintiff had objected to lending her such a sum; and
2. while arguing, the defendant had insulted the plaintiff, causing the plaintiff to want to divorce the defendant.

As a result of the defendant's conduct, the plaintiff submitted that the parties had been sleeping in separate beds since 1 November 2014. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

During pre-trial mediation, however, the plaintiff agreed to withdraw her claim.

The parties were married on 17 July 2010, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents for one month, before the plaintiff followed the defendant to Soe in Nusa Tenggara for two years, and then to Belu in 2012, when the defendant was transferred to work for the Police there. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had been happily married for three and a half years but had no children. Since January 2014, however, the parties had frequently quarrelled because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair with a woman called Hasni from Fatubenao. As a result, the parties had been separated since 19 January 2014, and the plaintiff had suffered emotionally. She requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The Court found that, as one of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff had not known about the dire state of the parties' marriage, the plaintiff had only produced one witness. The plaintiff had circumvented this problem, however, by providing her own sworn statement that the parties' marriage was no longer everlasting and joyful, or peaceful, hoping and loving (sakinah, mawaddah wa rahmah), as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, respectively. Accordingly, the Court acceded to the plaintiff's request, finding that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence of ongoing conflict between the parties, as required 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 1 October 2010, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents. They had been married for eight years and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage was no longer harmonious, however, because the defendant had physically assaulted her. More specifically, he had burned a cigarette out on her right elbow and thigh because the plaintiff had failed to make the defendant a coffee to his satisfaction. As a result, the parties had been separated since 2011, and the plaintiff requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21, that being an everlasting and joyful, as well as peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) domestic life. It acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(a) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(a) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 6 November 1999, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents. They had four children, all of whom were now in the care of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had always been quarrelsome because the defendant had been reluctant to adhere to the requirements of Islam, that is, praying five times a day (shalat) and fasting for Ramadhan. Problems escalated in September 2004, the defendant leaving the plaintiff without her knowledge, after yet another argument. Since then the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support, and was no longer in contact with the plaintiff or their four children. Owing to her own impecuniosity, the plaintiff requested that the state bear her court costs.

The Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21, that being an everlasting and joyful, as well as peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) domestic life. It acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict, per 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 parties were married on 8 May 2006 but had no children. The applicant submitted that, since 3 February 2012, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious after the respondent had ignored the applicant's pleas for her to return to Atambua, after having obtained the applicant's permission to return to her parents' home in Ainiba to help plant a rice padi. Accordingly, the applicant sought the Court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'). Owing to his own impecuniosity, the applicant also requested that the state bear his court costs.

The Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21, that being an everlasting and joyful, as well as peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) domestic life. It acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict, per 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 also ordered the state to bear the applicant's costs.

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 6 April 1980 and had two children. The applicant submitted that the parties had been happily married for 30 years. By June 2011, however, the marriage had become quarrelsome after the respondent had had an extra-marital affair with another man, whose identity the respondent had kept concealed from the applicant. The applicant also submitted that the respondent would return home in the middle of the night, flout or ignore the applicant's advice, become angry with the applicant, use profane language with the applicant, and had even requested that the applicant divorce her as quickly as possible before a religious court. As a result, the parties had been sleeping in separate beds since 18 February 2012. The applicant submitted that the information with which he had provided the court was sufficient to be granted a divorce (talak satu raj'i), pursuant to art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The court acceded to the applicant's request, granting him a revocable divorce 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 5 May 1997 in Dili, East Timor, and had two children. They lived in Dili for two years and two months before moving to Ujung Pandang, South Sulawesi, for one year and five months, before the applicant moved to Atambua in search of employment in 2001, with the respondent and their first child joining him in 2002.

The applicant submitted that the marriage had been harmonious initially, but from January 2010, it had become quarrelsome. In February 2010, the applicant saw the respondent getting a lift on the back of another man's motorcycle. Around March 2010, the applicant saw the respondent with that other man at the parties' kiosk. Problems escalated on 12 November 2010, when the respondent left the parties' home with that other man and the parties' children, without the applicant's permission or blessing, the respondent having confessed to having been physically intimate with the man.

The applicant requested that the Court grant him permission to divorce the respondent, as well as custody of the parties' two children. The Court acceded to the applicant's request for divorce 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. As the children were both below the age of 12 years (belum mumayyiz), pursuant to art 105 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the Court would usually be required to grant the respondent custody of the children, at least until they had reached the age of 12 years, after which they could decide with which parent they wanted to live. That said, the Court noted that the parties' daughter was already in the custody of the respondent and should remain there. With regards to the parties' son, who had been in the care of the applicant, while he was not year 12 years of age, as the respondent did not object to his remaining in the care of the applicant, the Court found it preferable for him to remain in the applicant's care.

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 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 parties were married on 9 December 1996 and had five children. They had lived with the plaintiff's parents for one month, before moving around Bukittinggi and Riau for approximately eight years, finally settling in Agam. The plaintiff submitted that, by the beginning of 2004, the marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. rather than providing for his family, would frequently preach with Jamaah Tabligh, incurring many debts along the way, forcing the plaintiff to have to work as a street vendor to make ends meet; and
2. had failed to care for and protect the plaintiff as his wife, showing little interest in any concerns she might have.

Problems escalated in August 2015 when the defendant fell from his motorcycle. When the plaintiff inquired with the defendant as to the cause of his fall, the defendant responded that he had been having negative thoughts about the plaintiff, which had caused him to fall. The plaintiff responded by saying that she could no longer live like this. The defendant's refusal to apologise left the plaintiff feeling offended. When the defendant then prepared a document stating that he divorced the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed for divorce with the court.

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 parties were married on 16 August 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted, however, that the marriage had only been harmonious for six months until March 2013, after which time the defendant had:

1. failed to provide for his family, causing the plaintiff to have to work in order to meet their daily domestic needs;
2. failed to show appropriate care and consideration for the plaintiff and their child;
3. had an extra-marital affair, which the plaintiff had learned about from reading a text message sent to the defendant's mobile phone; and
4. been dishonest regarding his finances, crying poor when the plaintiff requested money to purchase groceries, but always having enough money to drink at roadside stalls (warung).

Problems escalated at the end of April 2015 when the defendant refused to provide the plaintiff with extra shopping money. When the plaintiff inquired as to where the defendant stored his money, and the defendant refused to answer, the plaintiff told the defendant to leave the matrimonial home. The parties had remained separated since.

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, as well as Surah ar-Rum, verse 21 from the Qur'an.

The parties were married on 9 January 2015, after which they had lived with the respondent's parents in Agam. The applicant submitted that two months after the parties were married, however, they had started to quarrel frequently because the respondent:

1. had unnecessarily accused the applicant of carrying on a relationship with his ex-girlfriend; and
2. would frequently direct profane language at the applicant, failing to respect him as her husband, ostensibly because the applicant had sold a car gifted to him by his parents prior to marrying the respondent, without providing the respondent with any of the financial proceeds of the sale.

Problems escalated on 14 May 2015 when the applicant was in Padang for work. The applicant sent the respondent a text message informing her that he would be home late due to work. While the respondent was initially accepting of this, later that evening she texted the applicant, asking why he had not yet returned home, ordering him to do so, as well as requesting that the applicant divorce her. The parties had subsequently been separated for the past four months. Accordingly, the applicant requested that the court permit him to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

The court acceded to the applicant's request 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 3 September 2004 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that, on 28 March 2014, the defendant accompanied the plaintiff to Medan for medical treatment. The next day the defendant returned home, leaving the plaintiff at her elder sibling's home. Initially, the parties had remained in contact. After two months, however, the plaintiff telephoned the defendant asking why he had not inquired as to how she was, and why he had not sent her any money. When the plaintiff pushed the issue, it became apparent that the defendant had intended to divorce the plaintiff.

On 4 September 2014, the defendant telephoned the plaintiff, asking her to take him to his parents' home. The plaintiff was unsure, however, for how long the defendant had been living with his parents. When the plaintiff and her parents attended the defendant's parents' home to bring him back to the parties' home, the defendant orally divorced (talak) the plaintiff. Since then the parties' communication had ceased. Moreover, the parties had lived separately since 28 March 2014, and the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. Therefore, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had contravened his marriage vows (sighat taklik talak), per the parties' marriage book (buku nikah), entitling her to divorce the defendant for a fee (iwadh).

Seeking to be exempted from any court fees, the plaintiff also submitted that she was an impecunious person, financially responsible for two children, receiving government-funded health benefits, and the holder of a social security card.

Pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i), as well as exempting her from all court fees.

The parties were married on 2 April 2015, after which they lived with the respondent's parents in Agam for approximately one week, before moving to a rental property. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for a mere 10 days before the respondent frequently became angry with the applicant for coming home late from work.

Problems escalated at the end of June 2015 when the respondent accused the applicant's child of groping the applicant's genitals while the applicant was sleeping. The applicant refused to believe the respondent's accusation, while the applicant's child similarly denied it. The respondent, however, remained steadfast in her accusation leading to the parties arguing and, the following day, the applicant took the respondent to her parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the next two months. Familial intervention had failed to reunite the parties, and the applicant sought the court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

As a counterclaim, the respondent sought IDR 2.5 million to cover her expenses for the two-month period the parties had been separated leading up to the proceeding. Furthermore, for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), the respondent sought IDR 3 million, and for mut'ah (divorce compensation) 2.5 grams (1 mas) of 24-carat gold. The applicant submitted that he could only afford the following:

1. IDR 600,000 for the two months the parties were separated;
2. IDR 500,000 for iddah; and
3. one 24-carat gold ring with a weight of 0.625 grams (one-quarter of a mas).

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 ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent the following:

1. IDR 600,000 for the two months the parties were separated;
2. IDR 900,000 for iddah; and
3. one 24-carat gold ring with a weight of 1.25 grams (one-half of a mas).

The parties were married on 25 April 1997 and had two children. After marrying they had lived with the respondent's parents in Agam. The applicant submitted that, since the end of 2006, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent would go out drinking with her friends while the applicant was at work, and when the applicant confronted the respondent after seeing her drinking alcohol in a cafe, the respondent had denied any wrongdoing. Problems escalated at the end of 2008 when the applicant advised that the respondent not increase any of her debts. The respondent became angry with the applicant, forbidding him from interfering in her life. As a result, the applicant left the matrimonial home and returned to his parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the past seven years. The parties' families had not sought to make the parties reconcile, and the applicant submitted to the court that divorce (talak satu raj'i) was the only feasible option.

In her counterclaim, the respondent sought from the applicant IDR 2.5 million per month to cover costs associated with the parties' two children. The applicant submitted that he could only afford IDR 500,000 per month as his daily salary as a construction worker was only IDR 80,000.

The court acceded to the applicant'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. It also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 1 million in child maintenance.