SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 16 November 2012, after which they had lived with the respondent's parents in Agam. The applicant submitted that after three months of marriage the parties had begun to quarrel regularly because the respondent:

1. undervalued the applicant as her husband, often directing profane language at the applicant; and
2. was often unnecessarily jealous because the applicant was a driver, often becoming angry if the applicant returned home late, even refusing to let the applicant enter their home.

Problems escalated in April 2013 after the applicant confronted the respondent for her behaviour. A week after the respondent dismissed the applicant's advice, the applicant left the respondent for his parents' home. The parties had subsequently remained separated for the two years leading up to the proceeding. Accordingly, the applicant requested the Court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

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 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.

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 12 January 2001 and had one child. The applicant submitted that, by the beginning of 2014, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent had:

1. undervalued the applicant as her husband by, for example, not being at home when the applicant would return home for lunch, without first requesting the applicant's permission, and becoming angry when the applicant would confront the respondent about this; and
2. undervalued the applicant's family, frequently refusing to meet members of the applicant's family when they would visit.

Problems escalated at the end of 2014 when the respondent, for no apparent reason, refused to lend the applicant money to assist with his sale of daily items, despite the fact that the applicant had helped the respondent purchase bananas to be taken to market for sale. After the ensuing argument, the applicant left the respondent for his parents' home, where he had remained for the eight months leading up to the proceeding. The applicant had, however, continued to provide financial support for the parties' child. The applicant, accordingly, sought the court's permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent.

Other than refuting many of the applicant's submissions, the respondent also counterclaimed for the following:

1. IDR 4.5 million for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted);
2. a prayer (shalat) instrument as mut'ah (divorce compensation); and
3. IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance.

The applicant, in response, claimed he could only afford the following:

1. IDR 500,000 for iddah;
2. a prayer instrument as mut'ah; and
3. IDR 1.5 million in 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 ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent the following:

1. IDR 2 million for iddah;
2. a prayer instrument as mut'ah; and
3. IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance.

The parties were married on 8 July 2004 and had one child. They had lived with the applicant's parents for three years, before moving to a house behind a mobile phone sales counter. The applicant submitted that, by 8 September 2009, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent had left him for another man by the name of Randi. This had caused the applicant to suffer emotionally. Since 8 September 2009 until the time of the proceeding (four years and seven months), the parties had been separated. Accordingly, the applicant sought the court's permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent.

Despite the respondent's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two years.

The parties were married on 28 July 1988 and had four children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until September 2006, after which time the defendant had married another woman, unbeknownst to the plaintiff. Since June 2010, when the defendant left the plaintiff to be exclusively with his other wife, the parties had not been in contact. The plaintiff submitted that the past two years and 10 months leading up to the proceeding had caused her great emotional suffering, and that she no longer held onto hope that the parties would reunite. Accordingly, she requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two years.

The parties were married on 21 March 2011 and had one child. They had, at times, lived with both the applicant's parents and the respondent's parents. By January 2012, however, the applicant submitted that the marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent:

1. would ignore the applicant's advice;
2. refused to carry out her spousal obligations;
3. would want to return her to parents' home if she became angry; and
4. had been dishonest with the applicant.

Problems escalated in August 2012 when the respondent forbade the applicant from visiting his family who were mourning the loss of a family member. Despite efforts from both parties' families and the applicant to counsel the respondent about her conduct, the respondent refused to listen, instead leaving the applicant, returning to her parents' home, without the applicant's permission. The parties had remained separated for the nine months leading up to the proceeding, which had caused the applicant great emotional suffering. The applicant sought the court's permission to divorce the respondent, submitting that there was no hope of the parties reuniting (talak satu raj'i).

Despite the respondent's absence from court, 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 on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 7 November 2007, after which time they had lived with the defendant's parents for five years. The parties had two children. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By 2010, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. would direct profane language at the plaintiff; and
2. would frequently become emotional.

On 20 November 2012, the defendant filed for divorce with the Parepare Religious Court before subsequently withdrawing his application. Despite withdrawing the application, it had already made the plaintiff relocate to her parents' home, where she had remained for the four months leading up to the proceeding. The plaintiff submitted that she could not see herself reuniting with the defendant and, accordingly, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 24 August 2008 and had one child. They had lived with the respondent's parents for the first six months of their marriage, after which they separated, the applicant moving back to his own parents' home. The applicant submitted that the marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the respondent's family would frequently criticise the applicant, calling him impotent;
2. the respondent would frequently communicate with her ex-boyfriends, despite the applicant asking her not to do so; and
3. the respondent would often go out at night for no apparent need, and if the applicant advised her against doing so, the respondent and her family would become angry with the applicant, the respondent even once leaving the applicant for five months, without first informing the applicant.

In February 2009, feeling undervalued and as though he could no longer cope, the applicant left the respondent. The parties had remained separated for the four years and two months leading up to the proceeding, which had caused the applicant great emotional suffering. Familial intervention had failed to make the parties reconcile, and the applicant was resigned to the fact that the marriage could not be salvaged. Accordingly, he sought the court's permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent.

Despite the respondent's absence from court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds that the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years.

The parties were married on 18 March 2010 and had one child. They had lived with the plaintiff's parents for one year and six months, but by June 2011 the marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant would direct profane language at her, even frequently requesting a divorce. In August 2011, the defendant left the plaintiff without first informing her, and never returned. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had consequently been separated for one year and eight months, which had caused her great emotional suffering. Resigned to the fact that the parties' marriage could not be saved, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 7 April 1990 and had four children. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had been harmonious until August 2008, after which time it had become quarrelsome because the defendant had:

1. developed a gambling addiction;
2. never provided the plaintiff with financial support;
3. developed an addition to alcohol; and
4. had an extra-marital affair.

On 11 March 2013, when the plaintiff learned of the defendant's extra-marital affair, she asked the defendant to leave their home. The parties had subsequently remained separated for the month leading up to the proceeding. Familial intervention had also failed to make the parties reconcile. The plaintiff, accordingly, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), and that, owing to her own impecuniosity, it exempt her from any court fees.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the state to bear the plaintiff's costs.

The parties were married on 10 June 2011, after which they had lived with the parents of the defendant's first wife for two months, and then with the defendant's neighbour for one year and three months. The plaintiff submitted that, initially, the marriage had been harmonious, but by September 2011 it had become quarrelsome because:

1. the defendant's child from his first marriage had told the plaintiff to leave their home because they did not like her; and
2. the defendant had loaned money to another person without first informing the plaintiff.

On 2 November 2012, feeling unappreciated, the plaintiff left for Balikpapan without telling the defendant. The parties had remained separated for the five months leading up to the proceeding. Feeling the parties' marriage could not be salvaged, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 10 November 1999, after which time they had lived in a rental property for 11 years. They had three children. The plaintiff submitted that, as early as 2000, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had:

1. developed a gambling addiction; and
2. never provided the plaintiff with any financial support.

On 23 December 2010, the plaintiff left the defendant, returning to her parents' home. The parties had subsequently remained separated for the two years and four months leading up to the proceeding. The plaintiff, accordingly, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), and that, owing to her own impecuniosity, it exempt her from any court fees.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(a) and (b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(a) and (b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the defendant had developed a gambling addiction, and that the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years. The court also ordered the state to bear the plaintiff's costs.

The parties were married on 4 November 2012, but for the first seven days of their marriage, the parties were not physically intimate. Then, on 11 November 2012, the plaintiff learned that the defendant had married another woman, without the permission of either the plaintiff or a religious court. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had married pursuant to their parents' wishes, rather than their own. The plaintiff subsequently moved from her parents' home, where she had briefly lived with the defendant, to her aunt's home. The parties had remained separated for the five months leading up to the proceeding, and the plaintiff was resigned to the fact that the marriage could not be salvaged. Accordingly, she requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 4 April 2004 and had two children, who were now in the care of the respondent. They had lived with the applicant's parents for two years, before moving to the respondent's parents' home, where they had lived for six years and five months. The applicant submitted that the marriage had been harmonious until mid-2008, when the respondent had begun to flout the applicant's wishes, and the respondent's family had begun to meddle in the parties' domestic affairs. In June 2010, the applicant quarrelled with the respondent's family yet again, resulting in the applicant being asked to leave the respondent's parents' home, before the local imam was able to bring them to reconcile. In September 2012, following yet another argument, the applicant returned to his own parents' home.

The parties had remained separated for the seven months leading up to the proceeding, which had caused the applicant to suffer emotionally. Resigned to the fact that the marriage could not be salvaged, the applicant requested the court's permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent.

Despite the respondent's absence from court, 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.

The parties were married on 7 October 2002 and had one child, who was now in the care of the plaintiff. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. By November 2006, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. The defendant suffered from an (undisclosed) mental illness, preventing him from being able to work. The plaintiff submitted that she could not carry on married to the defendant, having already left him by returning to live with her parents in November 2006. The parties had remained separated for the six years leading up to the proceeding. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years.

The parties were married on 6 February 2004 and had two children. The applicant submitted that, while the first six years of the parties' marriage had been harmonious, it had been quarrelsome from thereon. The applicant submitted that the respondent had been disobedient and disrespectful towards the applicant as the head of the household by, for example, leaving the parties' home without the applicant's permission, neglecting her duties as a homemaker. Moreover, the respondent would act or make decisions without considering the applicant's opinion. The applicant also submitted that he had suspected the respondent was having an extra-marital affair, which had been a cause of conflict between the parties.

On 25 July 2011, the respondent left the parties' home without first informing the applicant. The applicant's subsequent attempts to locate the respondent had been in vain, and he submitted that he was resigned to the fact that the marriage could not be salvaged. Accordingly, he requested that the court grant him permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent.

Despite the respondent's absence from court, 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.

The applicants submitted that the second applicant had cared for the child in question since the child's biological mother had passed away on 22 May 2007 (the child's biological father could not afford to care for the child). On 13 June 2011, the second applicant married the first applicant. Due to the second applicant's age (54), however, it was unlikely that she would ever fall pregnant. The child's biological father had already granted his consent to the applicants to become the child's adoptive parents. The applicants, therefore, requested that they be stipulated by the court as the child's adoptive parents.

The court, pursuant to art 49 of Law No. 3 of 2006, as well as figure (20) of the elucidation of the same statute, acknowledged that child adoption based on Islamic law fell under its jurisdiction as a religious/shari'a court. Moreover, acknowledging that the applicants were financially secure and capable of raising the child, as well as their history of good character (no criminal record), the court, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection, and arts 12(1)(a)-(d), (2)(a) and 13(a)-(i) of Government Regulation No. 54 of 2007 on the Implementation of Child Adoption, granted them adoptive rights over the child.

The parties were married on 12 July 2010 by the plaintiff's brother, who had also acted as the plaintiff's marriage guardian (wali nikah) as the plaintiff's father had already passed away. The plaintiff submitted that after only three months the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had misled the plaintiff by claiming that he had already divorced his first wife before marrying the plaintiff, which he had not. The plaintiff submitted that she and her family were deeply ashamed by the defendant's actions, particularly by the defendant's failure to produce documentary evidence that he and his first wife had indeed divorced, which had precluded them from registering their marriage with the office of religious affairs. Moreover, while the parties had been separated since 1 March 2011, the defendant had already returned to his first wife. The plaintiff, therefore, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, 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 February 2001 and had one child. The applicant submitted that the marriage had been harmonious for the first eight years, after which it had then became quarrelsome. The applicant submitted that the primary reason for the disharmony was the respondent's failure to fulfil her spousal obligations, such as preparing meals on time, as well as obeying the applicant's wishes. Problems escalated in August 2011 when the respondent accused the applicant of having married another woman. This resulted in the respondent leaving the parties' home and returning to her parents' home, where she then remained for six months. Communal efforts to make the parties reconcile had also been in vain. The applicant submitted that divorce (talak satu raj'i) was the only feasible option, and that the respondent concurred.

The respondent, pursuant to arts 80(4)(a), 149(b), and 152 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, submitted a counterclaim for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted) compensation and mut'ah (divorce compensation). The applicant submitted that he could only afford to provide the respondent with IDR 4 million for iddah and a prayer instrument as mut'ah.

The court acceded to both parties' requests. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Laws, it acceded to the applicant's request for a divorce (talak satu raj'i). It also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 4 million for iddah, as well as provide her with a prayer instrument as mut'ah.

Prior to marrying on 21 December 2010, the parties had agreed that the plaintiff would move to South Aceh once she had completed her degree at the Indonesian Higher Education Management Institute (Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Manajemen Indonesia), Meulaboh, in a year's time. The plaintiff submitted, however, that after the parties had married and begun building a home together, the defendant had said he wanted to divorce the plaintiff. In April 2011, it became apparent that the defendant had misled the plaintiff and her family about where he had been living prior to marrying the plaintiff. On 17 April 2011, at 8:30pm, the defendant sent the plaintiff a text message stating that the plaintiff was no longer his wife and that she was welcome to file for a divorce with the shari'a court in Meulaboh. The plaintiff also submitted that, while the parties were married, the defendant had failed to provide her with any financial support, while denigrating her and her family.

After having not returned home for two months, the defendant returned to apologise, vowing to mend his ways. The parties attended the local office of religious affairs on 4 July 2011, the parties executing a promissory document, the contents of which stated that the defendant agreed to meet all the financial and emotional needs of the plaintiff, vowing not to treat the plaintiff in an appropriate manner again. The defendant, however, failed to abide by the contents of the document. Moreover, he then sent the plaintiff and plaintiff's father a text message saying he would file for a divorce with the local shari'a court. This caused the plaintiff great emotional suffering and moved her to file for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, 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.