SHARIAsource

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.

The parties were married on 27 March 1992 but had no children. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had only been harmonious for the first five years, after which time it had become quarrelsome. This was because of the vulgar and angry manner in which the respondent would behave towards the applicant, especially if the applicant mentioned the prospect of having children. Communal efforts had been implemented in an attempt to make the parties reconcile, but those efforts had been in vain. On 29 April 2012, the parties separated. The applicant submitted that he could no longer cope remaining married to the respondent and, accordingly, requested that the court grant him permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent.

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 January 2007 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had been harmonious for the first five years, after which time it had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant would become unnecessarily jealous and accuse the plaintiff of having an extra-marital affair, and, in the event of any minor problem, hit the plaintiff. On one occasion in May 2011, the defendant returned home from work and asked the plaintiff why she was being so quiet. For no apparent reason, the defendant then grabbed the plaintiff by the throat so badly that she struggled to eat for the next week.

The plaintiff returned to her parents' home for three days following the choking incident, before returning to the parties' home, only to find that the defendant had left. In June 2011, the parties reconciled with the help of communal efforts, but this proved to be temporary. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), allow the parties' child to remain in her care, and, owing to her own impecuniosity, exempt her from 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 granted her custody of the parties' child, and ordered the state to bear her court costs.

The parties were married on 2 October 2003. The applicant had two children from his previous marriage, and the respondent had three from hers. They also had two children of their own. The applicant submitted that the marriage had only been harmonious for a year before it had become quarrelsome. This was because, the applicant maintained, the respondent would become emotional towards the applicant and undervalued him as her husband. For example, if the applicant returned home late, the respondent would become angry and verbally abuse the applicant, in public and behind closed doors. The respondent had also once thrown her slippers and a rock at the applicant while verbally abusing him.

On 6 July 2012, the respondent, having never shown any affection towards the applicant's children from his first marriage, asked the applicant's children to leave the parties' home. As a result, the applicant was forced to find his own children a rental property. On 9 July 2012, during an argument, the applicant orally divorced the respondent, resulting in the parties separating. In requesting the court's permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent, the applicant also submitted that the two children from the parties' marriage be placed in his care as the respondent was not a competent mother.

In response, the respondent submitted that many of the parties' problems were a result of the applicant's gambling addiction. While the respondent did not seek financial compensation for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted) or mut'ah (divorce compensation), she sought custody of the parties' two children, and an order that the applicant pay to her IDR 200,000 per month for child maintenance.

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 court, however, granted custody of the parties' two children to the respondent, and ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 200,000 per month in child maintenance.

The parties were married on 17 January 2005 but had no children. After marrying in Bau-Bau, the parties had returned to Ambon and lived in a rental property from 2005-2006, before moving to their own home in December 2006. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2008, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair in Ambon and Jakarta. The plaintiff had learned of the affair when she called the defendant and the other woman in question answered his phone, resulting in the plaintiff and other woman arguing over the phone.

The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant had failed to disclose to her that, after the parties had agreed to rent out their property for one year, the defendant had rented it out for two years, spending the proceeds from rent payments on the other woman. The defendant had also confessed to having a daughter with a non-Muslim woman, the child now being in the care of the defendant's older sister, as well as marrying another woman, with whom he had a four-year old daughter.

Problems escalated on 13 Feburary 2011 when the defendant extended the term of the rental agreement for their property without first consulting the plaintiff. The defendant then spent the rent proceeds on the other woman, the plaintiff submitted.

The defendant submitted that he did not live in Ambon, but rather in Central Jakarta, and therefore the Ambon Religious Court lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. Moreover, he rejected the plaintiff's submission that he had used proceeds from renting their home to fraternise with another woman. Rather, the defendant submitted that he had used that money to cover the plaintiff's university fees (the plaintif was attending university in Makassar and the defendant did not have sufficient finances to cover the costs). The defendant also rejected the plaintiff's submission that he had married another woman with whom he had a four-year old daughter.

The defendant also submitted that from the IDR 17 million per annum he made from renting the parties' home, he had spent IDR 4 million on plumbing, IDR 5 million on the issuance of a certificate from the National Land Body, provided the plaintiff with IDR 4 million to discharge a debt she owed to a colleague, and IDR 2 million to pay an instalment to the landowner as the land had not yet been paid-off in full.

Dismissing the defendant's claim that the court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, the court found that, based on both parties' submissions, it was evident that the parties were no longer compatible and had already been separated since February 2011. Pursuant to 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 for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The parties were married on 18 April 2006 and had one daughter aged 5. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome as of 2008, after the defendant had been sentenced to one year in prison. While in prison the plaintiff had been unable to provide the defendant with any financial or emotional support, and once released from prison, he had become agressive towards the plaintiff, frequently becoming intoxicated and physically beating her. The plaintiff submitted that whenever the parties would quarrel the defendant would verbally divorce her. Feeling the parties' marriage was irreparable, the plaintiff requested the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff'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 22 April 2007 by the village imam. The respondent's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry (mas kawin) had been a prayer instrument purchased with cash. After the parties were married, they had lived together in Kendari for two weeks with the applicant's family before returning home to Ambon. The parties also had one child, who was currently in the respondent's care.

The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until the beginning of 2009, after which time it had become quarrelsome. The applicant submitted that this was because the applicant's first wife and her family would often threaten the respondent, telling her that the applicant intended to divorce her. This would, in turn, leave the respondent feeling threatened and demanding that the applicant divorce her. The applicant submitted that the parties had separated in December 2010, both parties having neglected their spousal obligations to one another. Accordingly, the applicant requested the Court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

The court acceded to the applicant's request, but also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 2.7 million for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and IDR 3.5 million as mut'ah (divorce compensation).

The parties were married on 10 February 2008 and had two children (the parties' three-year old child was currently in the care of the defendant's parents in Sorong, Papua, while the parties' one-year old child was in the care of the plaintiff). The plaintiff submitted that the parties had not been married long before the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant would consume alcohol excessively, gamble, carry on extra-marital affairs, and come home in the middle of the night. When the parties would argue the defendant would also become physically violent towards the plaintiff.

Problems escalated in mid-May 2010 when the defendant hit the plaintiff with a plank of wood while telling her he was leaving her. The parties had remained separated since.

The plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), that the parties' three-year old child be placed in her custody, and that it order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff:

1. IDR 11 million in spousal maintenance backpayments;
2. IDR 2 million for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted);
3. IDR 1 million as mut'ah (divorce compensation); and
4. IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance.

Purusant to 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 for an irrevocable divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict. It also acceded to her request to be granted custody of the parties' two children. Taking into consideration the defendant's income as a tukang ojek (motorcycle taxi driver), it also ordered him to pay to the plaintiff:

1. IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance;
2. IDR 5.5 million in backdated spousal maintenance; and
3. IDR 1.5 million for iddah.

The parties were married on 21 May 2010 and had one child. The applicant submitted that after two months, on 14 July 2010, the parties had quarrelled but were still living together. After the birth of the parties' child in January 2011, the parties had begun to quarrel frequently. By February 2011 the parties had begun to argue on a daily basis, prompting the applicant to leave the parties' home. Accordingly, the applicant sought the court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

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

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

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

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

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

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

The court acknolwedged that the parties' marriage was in an irreparable state and no longer constituted a joyful and everlasting domestic life, per art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life, per art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 7 August 1991 and had four children. After marrying, the parties lived in their own home in Jakarta, before moving to Ambon. From 1997-1999, the parties lived in a rental property, before moving to their own home where they lived from 1999-2009. The parties sold the home in 2009 after their business was declared bankrupt, after which time they lived in rental accommodation. The applicant submitted that since the parties' business had been declared bankrupt, their home was sold, and their finances were in a somewhat dire state, they had quarrelled regularly. Moreover, on 6 July 2010, the parties had begun to sleep in separate beds and had neglected their spousal obligations to one another. On 7 November 2010, the respondent texted the applicant in regard to their continuing domestic problems, requesting that the parties divorce amicably, threatening that if they did not divorce she would kill herself. Accordingly, the applicant requested the court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

When both parties failed to attend court, however, the court was forced to dismiss the claim.

The parties were married on 9 September 1996 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome early on for reasons unbeknownst to the plaintiff. The defendant would often become intoxicated and physically beat the plaintiff, as well as leave the parties' home for days on end. In February 2006, the defendant finally left the plaintiff and their two children. As a result, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The defendant responded to the plaintiff's submissions, submitting that the plaintiff had already married another man in July 2010, and questioning whether or not Islamic law permitted a woman to marry another man before her husband had first divorced her. The defendant conceded that the parties quarrelled frequently but reasoned that it was common for married couples to do so. Moreover, that the reason the parties quarrelled as frequently as they did was that the plaintiff would often leave the parties' home, leaving behind their two children for days on end. The defendant also conceded that he had physically beaten the plaintiff when in an intoxicated state but justified it on the grounds that the plaintiff would frequently leave the parties' home to fraternise with other men.

In response to the plaintiff's submission that the defendant had left the plaintiff and their children in mid-February 2006, the defendant responded that he had commenced work in West Seram regency on 1 February 2000, and that every time he had returned home on a weekend the plaintiff was never there. In actual fact, the defendant submitted, it was the plaintiff who had left the parties' home from mid-2008 until 31 January 2011, evidenced by the fact the plaintiff had been renting a room in Ambon with the man she subsequently married. Moreover, the parties' children had been living with the defendant's parents. The defendant submitted that he was surprised to learn, when he returned home on 1 Feburary 2011, that the plaintiff had filed for divorce. He also submitted that it was unfeasible for the plaintiff to expect the defendant to maintain his spousal obligations to the plaintiff when she had been carrying on extra-marital affairs with other men before re-marrying.

The court acknowledged that the parties' marriage was in an irreparable state and no longer constituted a joyful and everlasting domestic life, per art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life, per art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years, and ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 16 July 2006. They had no children, despite having already sought both conventional medical and alternative infertility treatment. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage, however, was only harmonious for the first two years. In February 2008, the defendant, a police officer, returned to his original post in Bogor. The parties remained in contact for the first month but from then on the defendant rarely contacted the plaintiff, other than to request that she send him money. For the past three years the parties had remained separated, the defendant providing the plaintiff with no financial or emotional support throughout their time apart.

In February 2010, the plaintiff took leave from work and went to Bogor to ask the defendant why the parties had not been in more regular contact. When the plaintiff arrived in Bogor, however, she discovered that the defendant had remarried. The plaintiff asked the defendant why he had remarried only to be told that the defendant had wished to take the burden off his new wife. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's response left her feeling bewildered. Accordingly, she requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

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, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years, and ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 15 January 1998 and had one adopted child. They had also lived with the plaintiff's parents for approximately 20 years. Not long after they were married the parties began to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was because of the defendant's alcoholic tendencies, as well as the fact that she had to bear all financial responsibilities, including those associated with the parties' adopted child. Problems escalated in 2008 when the defendant forced the plaintiff's adopted child out of the plaintiff's parents' home, causing the plaintiff great emotional suffering. The defendant then left the plaintiff, the parties remaining separated up until the time of the proceeding. The plaintiff had subsequently searched Bau-Bau in an attempt to ascertain the defendant's whereabouts but had been unsuccessful. In 2008, the plaintiff also moved to Ambon to live with her aunt.

The plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) with the court. Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acknowledged that the parties' marriage was in an irreparable state and no longer constituted a joyful and everlasting domestic life, per art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life, per art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Pursuant to art 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, it acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

This fatwa defines underhanded marriage (nikah di bawan tangan) as 'a marriage that meets all the pillars and requirements stipulated at fiqh (Islamic law), but without being officially registered with the authorised agency as regulated in legislation.' The fatwa states that underhanded marriage is lawful because it meets the requirements and pillars of marriage, but haram (forbidden) insofar as it creates a problem or loss. Therefore, marriage must be officially registered to prevent such a problem or loss.

This fatwa forbids interfaith marriage, stating that it is illegal and contrary to the teachings of the Qur'an.

This fatwa states that the majority of Indonesian Muslims adhere to Sunni Islam, which rejects Shi'a Islam in general, and the teachings on temporary marriage (nikah mut'ah) more specifically. The fatwa forbids temporary marriage and states that such behaviour must be prosecuted before a court, pursuant to current regulations.

This fatwa states that, historically, the pronouncement of marriage vows (sighat ta'liq talaq) protected the rights of the woman as the wife. Marriage vows are now no longer necessary, however, because of the establishment of the Marriage Counselling, Mentoring and Preservation Body (Badan Penasihatan Pembinaan dan Pelestarian Perkawinan), which exists at the central level all the way to the sub-regency level.