SHARIAsource

The applicant submitted that on 8 June 1960 she had married her husband in accordance with Islamic law. Her father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) before two witnesses, and with a dowry (mahar) of three grams of gold. No legitimate reasons impugned their marriage. The applicant's husband had passed away on 6 November 2015, his death certificate being issued on 10 November 2015. He left behind only his pension, which the applicant could not access because she and her husband had never been issued with a marriage certificate. Accordingly, the applicant requested that the court ratify her marriage in accordance with current legislative provisions.

The court, noting its exclusive jurisdiction over the ratification of Islamic marriages as guaranteed by art 49(a) of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, as well as the fact that the concrete facts submitted by the applicant accorded with art 7(2) and (3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the application.

The applicant requested that the court grant his son (aged 17) dispensation to marry his girlfriend (aged 18), with whom he had been been romantically involved for approximately eight months, and with whom he had been physically intimate on at least three occasions resulting in her falling pregnant. The applicant submitted that his application to the Office of Religious Affairs for his son to marry had been dismissed because his son was under the age of 19 and, therefore, did not meet the minimum age requirements contained in art 7(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 15(1) and (2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Minister of Religion Regulation No. 11 of 2007 on Marriage Registration.

The court, pursuant to art 7(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, acceded to the application. It did so on the grounds that the applicant's son and his girlfriend had already been romantically involved for a significant period of time and loved each other, evidenced by the fact that they had already agreed to marry in the future. Moreover, granting them dispensation to marry would preclude them from continuing to conduct themselves in a detrimental (mafsadat) way.

The applicant submitted that he and the respondent were married on 27 March 2016. The respondent's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry had been a prayer instrument and a five-gram gold ring. The parties had first met in November 2015, before the applicant proposed to the respondent in December 2015, and then requested the respondent's parents' permission to marry their daughter on 10 January 2016.

After the parties consummated their marriage, the applicant suspected that the respondent was not a virgin, despite the fact that the parties had not yet been physically intimate. On 1 April 2016, the applicant took the respondent to Dr Sazili, an obstetrician/gynaecologist, who ascertained that the respondent was already five months pregnant. The respondent then conceded that she had been physically intimate with another man before the parties were married, and that the unborn child's father was the other man.

The respondent, however, submitted that the Curup Religious Court was precluded from adjudicating the case because she was registered as a Bengkulu resident. After the applicant conceded as much, the Court acceded to the respondent's objection and abstained from passing judgment.

In this case the applicant withdrew his request, noting that the first and second respondents, who were absent from court, had remarried at their place of residence.

In this case the plaintiff withdrew her application, while, for no apparent reason, the defendants failed to attend court.

The parties were married on 26 May 2012. They had lived together in the village of Ambokembang, Kedunwuni, Pekalongan for three years and ten months, but had no children. Pursuant to art 171(h) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the parties sought to adopt a 40-day old child whose parents, due to their own financial hardship, were unable to provide for their child.

On the facts, and in accordance with Islamic law as it applies in Indonesia, the court acceded to the parties' application for adoption. The court stipulated that between the parties and their adopted child now existed a legal relationship of compulsory inheritance (wasiat wajibah), whereby the child would inherit one-third of his/her adoptive parents' estate, and vice versa, pursuant to art 209 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 20 March 2015, after which time they had lived with the plaintiff's parents until August 2015. While the parties had already consummated their marriage they had no children. In September 2015, the parties had separated after the defendant left the plaintiff to go on a motorcyle tour of Bali. Since the defendant's departure, the parties had remained separated for eight consecutive months, during which time the defendant had not contacted the plaintiff, nor provided her with any financial support. The defendant's conduct was in direct contravention of his marriage vows (taklik talak). The plaintiff, therefore, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i) of IDR 10,000.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the defendant's conduct had contravened his marriage vows.

The plaintiff submitted that she and the defendant were married on 17 November 2006, after which time they had lived at her home for nine years and eight months. The parties also had one child aged 8 years. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious, but for the past month it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair, which she had discovered after reading a text message from another woman on the defendant's mobile phone. When the plaintiff questioned the defendant about the contents of the text message, however, the defendant refused to acknowledge his duplicitous behaviour. While the parties had since remained under the same roof, they now slept in separate beds.

While the plaintiff had initially requested an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), she informed the court that she and the defendant had reconciled and that she would be withdrawing her application. The court directed the court registrar to withdraw the application and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 191,000).

The plaintiff submitted that she and the defendant were married on 7 August 2015, after which time they had lived at the plaintiff's parents' home. While they had already consummated their marriage, the parties had no children. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious, but for the past two weeks it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant had failed to provide for her financially. Moreover, the defendant had refused to look for work. Following their disagreement the defendant had returned to his parents' home. While the defendant had sought to reconcile with the plaintiff, the plaintiff had initially refused to do so.

While the plaintiff had initially requested an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), she informed the court that she and the defendant had reconciled and that she would be withdrawing her application. The court directed the court registrar to withdraw the application and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 241,000).

The parties were married on 14 September 2009 and had an 8 year old child. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had been harmonious until February 2010, after which time it had begun to deteriorate because the defendant rarely provided her with any financial support, rarely worked, and then, in April 2010, left her without any notice. The plaintiff's subsequent attempts to ascertain the whereabouts of the defendant were unsuccessful. Having concluded that the defendant was an irresponsible husband, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 19(f) and (b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and (b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, and that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years.

The parties were married on 17 November 2011, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents for approximately seven months. While they had already consummated the marriage, the parties had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, since June 2012, the marriage had been unstable because the defendant had left the plaintiff, ostensibly to work in Kalimantan. In actual fact, however, he would never return. On the grounds that the defendant had breached his marriage vows (taklik talak), the plaintiff requested the court grant her an irrevocable divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i) of IDR 10,000.

After hearing from the plaintiff's witnesses, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. The court, pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce for a fee on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years, and that the defendant had breached his marriage vows.

The parties were married on 7 March 2002 in Wasponda, Soroako, Central Sulawesi (Sulawesi Tengah), by the local imam. The second applicant's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali), two witnesses were present, and the dowry (mahar) was a one-gram gold ring. The first applicant was a widower and the second applicant a virgin, and there were no other bars to their marriage, such as being blood relatives or having shared the same wet nurse. After the parties were married, they had lived together and had one child, born on 4 February 2003. Their marriage, however, had not been registered with the local Office of Religious Affairs. In order to obtain a marriage book (buku nikah), the parties requested that their marriage be registered.

The court, pursuant to art 12(4) of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2015, ruled that the case could be adjudicated by a sole judge. Furthermore, the judge, pursuant to art 7(2) and (3)(d) and (e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was of the opinion that the applicants' request could be considered by the court. The judge, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974, stated that a marriage is lawful if conducted according to the respective religion and beliefs of the parties, which in this case was Islam. Applying art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge stated that the pillars of marriage require that there be:

1. a prospective husband;
2. a prospective wife;
3. a marriage guardian;
4. two witnesses; and
5. an oral declaration.

Finding that these criteria had been met, and that there were no other bars to their marriage, the judge, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, declared the marriage lawful (sah).

The parties were married on 25 January 2010 and had one child aged 5 years. They had lived with the plaintiff's parents for two years until January 2012 before separating. The marriage deteriorated, the plaintiff submitted, because the defendant:

1. had not provided for his family, forcing the plaintiff's family to cover their daily expenses; and
2. showed no interest or desire to care for the plaintiff and their child.

The parties had been separated for a total of four years and one month at the time of the proceeding, during which time they had not been physically intimate. The plaintiff submitted that she could not remain married to the defendant as he had proven himself to be an irresponsible husband. The defendant was also absent from court. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

After corroborating the plaintiff's submissions with evidence provided by the plaintiff's two witnesses, 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 plaintiff's application on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 21 January 2005 and had lived at the applicant's home for a year (until January 2006). While they had already consummated their marriage, they had no children. The applicant submitted that, since July 2005, the marriage had been disharmonious, however, because the respondent found his salary as a labourer unsatisfactory. The respondent left the applicant in January 2006, returning to her childhood home. The parties then remained separated for the next eight years and nine months. The applicant, accordingly, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

After corroborating the applicant's submissions with evidence provided by the applicant's witnesses, the court acceded to his 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 between the parties.

The parties were married on 28 April 2005 at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali), the parties' oral declaration (ijab) had been witnessed by a celebrant (penghulu nikah), two other witnesses were present, and the dowry (mas kawin) had been a IDR 20,000. At the time of the marriage the first applicant was 25 years of age, and the second applicant was 19 years. There were no bars to their marriage under Islam, and the parties already had two children. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified so that they could obtain a marriage certificate from the local Office of Religious Affairs, as well as birth certificates for their children. As the applicants had failed to attend court, however, the sole judge ruled a miscarriage.

The parties were married on 11 July 2011 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2014, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious due to financial problems. In order to avoid further conflict, the plaintiff moved to Hong Kong in September 2014 to take a job as a domestic worker. Since then the parties had remained separated and maintained little contact. The plaintiff's family had also counselled her to return to the defendant, but the plaintiff refused, feeling that the parties could no longer co-exist. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 25 December 1986 in Patue, Ajangale, Bone, by the local imam. The second applicant's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali), two witnesses were present, and the dowry (mahar) was a one-gram gold ring. Both applicants were virginal, and there were no other bars to their marriage, such as being blood relatives or having shared the same wet nurse. After the parties were married, they had lived together and had four children aged 29, 25, 24 and 21. Their marriage, however, had not been registered with the local Office of Religious Affairs. In order to obtain a marriage book (buku nikah), the parties requested that their marriage be registered.

The court, pursuant to art 12(4) of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2015, ruled that the case could be adjudicated by a sole judge. Furthermore, the judge, pursuant to art 7(2) and (3)(d) and (e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was of the opinion that the applicants' request could be considered by the court. The judge, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974, stated that a marriage is lawful if conducted according the respective religion and beliefs of the parties, which in this case was Islam. Applying art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge set out the pillars of marriage, which require that there be:

1. a prospective husband;
2. a prospective wife;
3. a marriage guardian;
4. two witnesses; and
5. an oral declaration.

Finding that these criteria had been met, and that there were no other bars to their marriage, the judge, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, declared the marriage lawful (sah).

The parties were married on 4 August 2007 and had lived with the applicant's parents for eight years and seven months. While they had had a child, the child had died at birth on 21 November 2013. The applicant submitted that the marriage had been harmonious until 8 March 2016 when the applicant learned that the respondent was having an extra-marital affair with another man. Problems escalated on 11 March 2016, resulting in the respondent leaving the matrimonial home without notice. For the next month the respondent had not returned home, nor had she contacted the applicant. The applicant submitted that the respondent's conduct constituted neglect of her responsibilities as a wife. The applicant, accordingly, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

After corroborating the applicant's submissions with information provided by two of the applicant's witnesses, the court acceded to the applicant's request, 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, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The applicant submitted that he and his wife were married on 18 April 1996 and had three children. When the applicant went to make the necessary arrangements for his third child's birth certificate, however, he encountered difficulties because his name on his marriage certificate differed from the name on his residence card, family card, and the birth certificate of his second child. In order to overcome this problem and have his third child's birth certificate issued, the applicant requested a court determination stating that he was the person in all the aforementioned official documents.

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds that changing one's name is appropriate provided such a request is made in good faith. In accordance with the applicant's request, the court also ordered the applicant to register his change of name with a marriage registrar at the Blitar Religious Affairs Office.

The parties were married on 13 November 2015. At the time of their marriage the plaintiff was virginal and the defendant a widower. The parties had lived with the defendant's parents until they separated on 25 March 2016. The plaintiff submitted that they had separated after frequent quarrelling caused by the defendant's:

1. unwarranted jealousy and accusations that the plaintiff was having an extra-marital affair;
2. profane language directed at the plaintiff;
3. violent tendencies towards the plaintiff when they argued;
4. refusal to take the plaintiff to see her ill father; and
5. prohibition on the plaintiff communicating with her parents and family.

The plaintiff produced two witnesses who provided information that corroborated with her submissions. Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.