SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 8 January 2007 and had one child aged 9. Their marriage had been harmonious until 2013, after which it had become quarrelsome because of the defendant's:

1. frequent unwarranted jealousy and accusations that the plaintiff was having an extra-marital affair; and
2. inability to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial allowance.

Problems escalated in July 2015, which resulted in the parties separating. 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.

The applicant submitted that he had married a woman by the name of M binti S on 25 November 1996, with whom he had a child aged 15 years and 8 months (born on 29 September 1997). The child had requested the applicant's permission to marry, and the applicant had granted his permission because he considered his child already an adult and in love with her fiance, who was 20 years and 3 months of age (born on 21 March 1993). Moreover, the applicant's child and her fiance had known each other for a year and had been engaged since March 2013. The applicant had already requested the permission of the head of his local Office of Religious Affairs, but the application had been dismissed.

The applicant had, therefore, filed an application with the court for a judicial determination granting his daughter permission to marry as a minor. After receiving the counsel of the court, however, the applicant withdrew his application and agreed to postpone his child's wedding until she was of age.

The applicant submitted that he had married a woman by the name of L binti M on 11 June 2013, with whom he had two children. One of his children was already married, while the other was aged 15 years and 4 months (born on 2 February 1998). The applicant's second child had requested the applicant's permission to marry her fiance, and the applicant had granted his permission because he considered his child already an adult and in love with her fiance, who was 25 years and 10 months of age (born on 26 August 1988). Moreover, the applicant's child and her fiance had known each other for three months, and the applicant was concerned his daughter and her fiance would soon consummate their relationship regardless. The applicant had already requested the permission of the head of his local Office of Religious Affairs, but the application had been dismissed on 11 June 2013.

The applicant, therefore, filed an application with the court for a judicial determination granting his daughter permission to marry as a minor. In acceding to the application, the court, pursuant to art 7(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, acknowledged that the applicant's daughter was not the required 16 years of age a female must be before she can marry. On the facts, however, the court acknowledged that the applicant's daughter and her fiance were already emotionally dependent on one another, were engaged, and that there were no other bars to their marriage. The requirements for marriage dispensation contained in arts 7(2), 8 and 9 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 15(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the elucidation of art 49(2) and (3) of Law No. 7 of 1989 as amended by Law No. 3 of 2006 and Law No. 50 of 2009, had, therefore, been met.

The parties were married on 4 Feburary 2016. The plaintiff's father had served as the marriage guardian (wali nikah), the parties were married by the local imam, two witnesses had been present, and the dowry (mas kawin) had been a two-gram ring purchased with cash. The parties did not, however, have a marriage book (buku nikah), which the plaintiff required for administrative purposes in order to divorce the defendant.

The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had only been harmonious until the end of February 2016, when it had become increasingly quarrelsome. The plaintiff, therefore, requested that the court declare the parties' marriage lawful, and grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

On the day of the proceeding, however, the defendant failed to attend because, despite having been summonsed by the court bailiff, he had never received the summons as no one in the defendant's community, including authorities, knew him. Moreover, the court had counselled the plaintiff to first locate the defendant and then seek to reconcile with him. The plaintiff, acting on the court's advice, opted to withdraw her application.

The parties were married on 1 June 2011 and had one child, a three year old boy who was living with the defendant. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until December 2015, after which time it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. was too subservient to his parents, never heeding the plaintiff's advice; and
2. requested that the plaintiff return money he once sent the plaintiff while he was in Malaysia.

Problems escalated on 25 January 2016, resulting in the plaintiff leaving the defendant's home to live with her parents. While the plaintiff's family advised her to reconcile with the defendant, their efforts were to no avail. 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 Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The applicant submitted that the Cilacap Religious Court, on 10 January 2007, had granted her a divorce from her ex-husband. The applicant also submitted that she was currently one and a half month's pregnant and wished to marry the father of her unborn child. Her application to the South Cilacap Office of Religious Affairs, however, had been dismissed because she had not yet received judicial approval to marry again.

The court acknowledged that, in its dismissal of the applicant's request, the Office of Religious Affairs was simply adhering to art 153(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. In acceding to the applicant's request, the court noted that the applicant had fallen pregnant outside of her period of iddah (three-months after divorce has been granted) after divorcing her ex-husband, meaning that her pregnancy was unrelated to her period of iddah. Therefore, pursuant to art 53(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court was able to permit the applicant to marry the father of her unborn child.

The parties were married on 3 April 2013 and had one child aged 2, who was under the care of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that, by May 2013, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had only spent his income on himself. Furthermore, the defendant had emotionally and physically abused the plaintiff, and would use profane language with the plaintiff's parents. The parties separated in 2015 and had remained separated for a total of one year and five months. Pursuant to art 19(d) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(d) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro) on the grounds that the defendant's conduct had threatened her well-being, and ongoing conflict.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, noting that the information provided by the two witnesses produced by the plaintiff corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions.

The parties were married on 20 September 1999 and had one child, born on 4 December 2003. For the majority of their marriage they had lived with the plaintiff's parents in Cilacap. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until 2004, after which time it had become quarrelsome because the defendant's refusal to work had left the parties without the financial means required to support themselves and their child.

In December 2005, the plaintiff had relocated to Jakarta to work as a domestic worker (pembantu). Again, in December 2008, the plaintiff relocated to Malaysia as a domestic worker. In December 2010, when the plaintiff returned to Cilacap for 20 days on leave, the parties had continued to quarrel, principally because the defendant had amassed several debts in the plaintiff's absence. The plaintiff sought to repay the defendant's debts while the defendant moved in with his older sibling. On 19 June 2011, when the plaintiff again returned to Indonesia, the defendant expressed no desire to reunite with the plaintiff or their child. Accordingly, the plaintiff, pursuant to art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, in conjunction with art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, requested that 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 application, noting that the information provided by the two witnesses produced by the plaintiff corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions.

The parties were married on 10 January 2013 and had one child, aged 2. They had lived with the defendant's parents for approximately three months before moving to their own home nearby. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been disharmonious from the beginning because the defendant:

1. was drug-addicted;
2. gambled with his friends;
3. was temperamental and frequently drove the plaintiff away, even physically assaulting her when he became enraged; and
4. only worked when he so desired.

Problems escalated in November 2015 when the plaintiff was forced to work out of necessity while the defendant spent his time at home. When the plaintiff suggested that the defendant also seek employment he struck the plaintiff, resulting in the plaintiff leaving the parties' home.

The plaintiff submitted that it was in the interest of the parties' child that their child be in the plaintiff's care given the child's young age, as well as the fact that the defendant was rarely home and unemployed. The plaintiff also submitted that as the parties' marriage and home life was no longer peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah), and in order that they did not contravene legal and religious norms, an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) was the parties' final option.

The court acceded to the applicant's request, finding that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, it did so on the grounds of ongoing conflict, 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 parties were married on 21 June 2006 and had two children aged 9 and 4 years, both of whom were in the plaintiff's care. They had lived with the plaintiff's parents for approximately seven years before relocating to the ghetto (kampung). The plaintiff submitted that, since the end of 2007, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. was in debt (the plaintiff learned of this from one of the defendant's debtors);
2. would physically assault the plaintiff when angry; and
3. was excessively jealous and would accuse the plaintiff of having an extra-marital affair with another man.

Problems escalated in August 2015 when the defendant telephoned the plaintiff while she was bathing. When the plaintiff consequently failed to answer the telephone, the defendant became angry, beating her and pulling her hair. As a result, the plaintiff left the parties' home. Familial intervention had also failed to reconcile the parties' differences.

The plaintiff submitted that as the parties' marriage and home life was no longer peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah), and in order that they did not contravene legal and religious norms, an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) was the parties' final option.

The court acceded to the applicant's request, finding that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, it did so on the grounds of ongoing conflict, 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 applicant submitted that, on 2 July 1984, he had married Khairum Sofia binti Nurdin in accordance with Islam at the local office of religious affairs in Seruway, Aceh Tamiang. They had three children, all of whom were married, the youngest of whom was the respondent. Khairum Sofia binti Nurdin had died on 8 January 2014 due to illness. An official record of their marriage had been lost during a flood in 2006 and the applicant had submitted an application that his nuptials be ratified in order that he might access his retirement pension.

The respondent's submission corroborated with all of the applicant's submissions except the submission that he was the applicant's biological child from his marriage to Khairum Sofia binti Nurdin. In actual fact, the respondent submitted, he was the biological child of the applicant's first marriage to a woman named Aminah. Acknowledging this fact, the applicant withdrew his application as it stood. The court acceded to the applicant's withdrawal.

The parties were married on 13 February 2012 and had one child, born on 17 May 2013. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until the end of 2013. After that time, however, it had become quarrelsome because the respondent had been disobedient towards the applicant, would become excessively jealous and suspicious of the applicant, and if the applicant ever counselled the respondent the parties would quarrel. On one such occasion, the applicant orally divorced the respondent, after which time the parties separated.

In response to the applicant’s submissions, the respondent requested IDR 5 million per month in retrospective maintenance (nafkah) back dated to June 2014. The respondent also requested IDR 20 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted) and mut’ah (divorce compensation) in the form of a 24 karat gold bracelet, IDR 10 million for maskan (accommodation), IDR 10 million for kiswah (clothing), custody of the parties' child, IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance, and that the parties' vehicle be seized to prevent the applicant from transferring the ownership thereof. The respondent then withdrew her request regarding the parties' vehicle.

The court acceded to the applicant's request, finding that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. 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, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also acknowledged that the applicant's monthly wage was IDR 7 million. Accordingly, he would only be able to afford the following:

1. IDR 5 million for iddah;
2. a 6.6 gram gold ring as mut'ah;
3. IDR 1 million for kiswah; and
4. IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance (the court awarded custody of the parties' child to the respondent).

The parties were married on 6 July 2012, after which time they had lived with the defendant's parents, before moving to the plaintiff's parents' home. The parties also had a three and a half month old son. In his vows (sighat taklik talak), the defendant promised to fulfil his spousal obligations and to treat the plaintiff well. Moreover, he stated that the plaintiff may divorce him before a religious court (pengadilan agama) if he ever:

1. left the plaintiff for two consecutive years;
2. failed to provide the plaintiff with financial support for three months;
3. caused the plaintiff any physical or psychological harm; and/or
4. neglected the plaintiff for six months.

The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for the first three years. On 6 October 2015, however, the defendant had left the plaintiff for no apparent reason, never to return. During that time the defendant neither provided the plaintiff with any financial support nor did he communicate with her, contrary to points 2 and 4 of his marriage vows. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her a judicial divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i) of IDR 10,000.

In acceding to the plaintiff's application, the court acknowledged the defendant's absence from court, but also accepted the plaintiff's submissions, as well as the written evidence submitted and the witnesses she produced in court to corroborate her evidence. Pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce for a fee and ordered her to pay costs (IDR 361,000).

The parties were married on 20 June 1975 and their marriage certificate was issued the following day. They had first lived with the applicant's parents and the respondent's parents before moving to their own home in Langsa. The parties had five children and had been happily married for 35 years. Since June 2010, however, their marriage had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent believed the applicant was not providing her with enough financial support. Moreover, the respondent did not agree with the applicant wanting to take another wife and would, therefore, frequently ask the applicant for a divorce. Problems escalated in November 2014 and the parties chose to sleep in separate beds. Familial intervention had failed to make the parties reconcile and the applicant believed that a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) was the best option.

In her oral response to the applicant's submissions, the respondent submitted that actually:

1. the parties had quarrelled since 1989, not over finances but because the applicant had, while married to the respondent, married two other women without first obtaining the respondent's permission; and
2. problems had escalated in November 2014 because the respondent had learned that the applicant had already married yet another woman.

The respondent told the court that she did not object to the applicant's request to divorce her but she demanded IDR 9 million in backdated financial support for the previous six months, as well as IDR 4.5 million for iddah (three-month period after which divorce has been granted). In response to these demands, the applicant submitted that he should only provide the respondent with IDR 3.6 million for the previous six months and IDR 1.8 million for iddah because the respondent already made IDR 1.5 million per month working on a palm oil plantation.

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 by granting him a revocable divorce (talak satu' raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. It also partially acceded to the respondent's demands by granting the following:

1. IDR 4.5 million in backdated maintenance; and
2. IDR 2.25 million for iddah.

The parties were married on 8 July 2005 and had two children aged eight and six years. At the time of the proceeding, the eight year old child was in the plaintiff's care, while the six year old child was in the care of the defendant. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for seven and a half years but, since December 2013, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had had an extra-marital affair with another woman;
2. was frequently physically and emotionally abusive towards the plaintiff, which had left the plaintiff traumatised; and
3. was irresponsible in maintaining a household, which would lead to regular arguments between the parties.

Problems escalated in January 2016 when the plaintiff simply wished to discuss with the defendant the drafting of the birth certificate of one their children. The plaintiff submitted that, for reasons unknown to her, this caused the defendant to become so enraged that he plunged the plaintiff into a full bathtub four times. The plaintiff then left the defendant and returned to her parents' home where she had remained since. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court acknowledged that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, it acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds of ongoing conflict, 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 parties were married on 28 October 2011 and had one child aged three years. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had always been disharmonious because the respondent:

1. had always been dissatisfied with what he had provided her financially;
2. would not deliberate with the applicant;
3. was unwarrantedly suspicious of the applicant;
4. was aggressive and harsh towards the applicant;
5. would prioritise her family's needs over his; and
6. would frequently request a divorce.

Problems escalated in November 2013 resulting in the respondent leaving the applicant and returning to her parents' home in Langsa. The parties had remained separated since and the applicant submitted that he believed a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) was the only feasible option available to the parties.

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. It also acknowledged that revocable divorce is regulated in art 118 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 29 December 2006 and had two children, both of whom were in the care of the plaintiff at the time of the proceeding. The plaintiff submitted that the first seven months of the parties' marriage had been harmonious, but since November 2013 their marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. seldom provided for the parties' family;
2. frequently returned to his parents' home without the plaintiff's knowledge, even spending more time with his parents than the plaintiff;
3. was dependent on his parents; and
4. did not act as the leader of the household.

Problems escalated in January 2014 when the defendant left the plaintiff for no apparent reason. The parties had remained separated since. Accordingly, the plaintiff felt that the parties' marriage was irreparable and that an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) was the only feasible remaining option.

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 two consecutive years or more.

The parties were married on 25 June 1999. In his vows (sighat taklik talak), the defendant promised to fulfil his spousal obligations and to treat the plaintiff well. Moreover, he stated that the plaintiff may divorce him before a religious court (pengadilan agama) if he ever:

1. left the plaintiff for two consecutive years;
2. failed to provide the plaintiff with financial support for three months;
3. caused the plaintiff any physical or psychological harm; and/or
4. neglected the plaintiff for six months.

The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for 14 years. On 10 May 2013, however, the defendant had left the plaintiff for no apparent reason, never to return. During that time the defendant neither provided the plaintiff with any financial support nor did he show any care for the plaintiff or communicate with the plaintiff, contrary to points 1, 2 and 4 of his marriage vows. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her a judicial divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i) of IDR 10,000.

In acceding to the plaintiff's application, the court acknowledged the defendant's absence from court, but also accepted the plaintiff's submissions, as well as the written evidence submitted and the witnesses she produced in court to corroborate her evidence. Pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce for a fee and ordered her to pay costs (IDR 706,000).

The parties were married on 21 July 1998 and had four children. The plaintiff submitted that the first 16 years of the parties' marriage had been harmonious but, since December 2014, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had had an extra-marital affair with another woman; and
2. rarely provided the plaintiff with any financial support.

Problems then escalated in August 2016 when the plaintiff learned that the defendant had married another woman. As a result, the parties had been sleeping in separate beds, and, the plaintiff submitted, that the most feasible option available to the parties was irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in sughra). After receiving counsel from the court, however, the plaintiff opted to withdraw her application, while both parties said they would endeavour to reconcile their differences.

The parties were married on 27 June 2009 and had two children aged 2 and 3 years, both of whom were in the care of the respondent. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had always been quarrelsome because the respondent had:

1. constantly accused the applicant of carrying on an extra-marital affair, which had affected the applicant's ability to provide for his family and threatened his well-being; and
2. frequently exaggerated the state of the parties' domestic life to her parents.

Problems escalated on 29 July 2014 when the respondent's refusal to cook for the applicant turned into an argument between the parties. Three days later, while the applicant was not at home, the respondent's parents attended the parties' home to collect the respondent, the parties' two children, and the parties' belongings. The parties had remained separated ever since. The applicant, therefore, believed that a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) was the only feasible option available.

The court acknowledged that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, 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, it acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.