SHARIAsource

In a divorce proceeding, the Circuit Court of Fairfax County upheld a couple’s marriage contract. On appeal, defendant Ali Afghahi raised several arguments against the validity of the contract, and claimed that upholding it would be inequitable; he also made several evidentiary objections, including that the marriage contract as admitted was not the original document and should therefore be barred according to the “best evidence rule.” He further argued that as no expert was called to testify about the meaning of marriage in Islamic cultures, the judgment was unenforceable. The appellate court rejected these arguments and affirmed the judgment against him (and in favor of the validity of the marriage contract), concluding that his objections were untimely because he had not raised them in the lower court.

At issue in this case is the validity of a marriage performed in the Islamic tradition, where the husband sought an annulment of an initial “traditional” marriage and recognition of a subsequent civil marriage. The law of the Philippines does not require a couple to obtain a marriage certificate if their marriage is performed according to the Islamic tradition; accordingly the couple married under traditional Islamic law and obtained no certificate. In seeking annulment of that marriage and recognition of a subsequent marriage, appellant Rafiqul Islam argued that the first marriage was not official; he further argued that the union was not truly Islamic because his so-called wife was not Muslim, because the wedding ceremony was performed by a clerk rather than a religious official, and because neither party intended to enter into a marital relationship. On appeal, the Court upheld the trial court’s decision that the first marriage was a legitimate, state-recognized union, and thus that any subsequent marriage would be considered void.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s refusal to enforce an Islamic marriage contract, which called for a postponed dowry (mahr) owed by the husband to the wife upon death or divorce of $25,000. The Court found that the groom was coerced into signing the agreement, and thus it was not valid. The Court did not delve into the potential First Amendment Establishment Clause issues considered by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

The Texas Court of Appeals reversed a state district court’s decision to uphold an Islamic marriage contract that awarded the wife a deferred dowry (mahr), an amount agreed upon at the time of marriage and due to the wife from the husband or his estate upon death or divorce, of $50,000. The district court had concluded that the amount was due pursuant to a marital contract made by the parties “in contemplation of a forthcoming marriage,” constituting “a valid, binding, and enforceable contract under Sections 4.001-003 of the Texas Family Code.” The appellate court reversed and remanded to the lower court, concluding that the agreement was not a valid premarital contract under the state law, defined as “an agreement between prospective spouses made in contemplation of marriage,” because the religious wedding ceremony occurred before the contract was signed. As the contract fell outside of the definition of premarital contract, the Court concluded that it could not be enforced like one. 

The plaintiff petitioned the Court to bury his wife according to Islamic legal requirements over the objections of her family. The plaintiff claimed that he and his wife had shared the Islamic faith and had married by way of an Islamic marriage ceremony the previous year. However, they never obtained a marriage license, and there was no proof of her faith or burial wishes. The Court found in favor of the deceased’s parents, concluding that, without a marriage license, the plaintiff was not her surviving spouse before the law. Therefore, the deceased was to be buried according to her parents' wishes. The Court did not view this as a potential First Amendment Free Exercise issue.

This Court reversed the decision of the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County that prevented a wife from collecting her deferred dowry (sadaq), the dowry due from the husband to the wife upon marriage, a portion of which is deferred by agreement to be paid upon death or divorce. The husband argued that, under Islamic law, the wife forfeits her contractual right to the deferred dowry if, as here, she is the one to seek the divorce. This Court upheld the contract, holding that it was binding because there was a meeting of the minds, and the parties agreed that the deferred dowry would be due upon divorce.

The parties were married on 22 February 2010 and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By August 2015, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent constantly expressed a desire to return to her parents' home in Sulawesi. In October 2015, the respondent left the applicant for no apparent reason. She had also ceased all communications with the applicant. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Moreover, that the parties' marriage could not realise the purpose of marriage as contained in the Qur'an, Surah Ar-Rum, verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 15 January 2012 and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By May 2013, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. had carried on an extra-marital affair with another woman;
2. had frequent differences of opinion with the plaintiff regarding finances to the extent that the defendant no longer worked nor provided for the plaintiff; and
3. would verbally and physically abuse the plaintiff when the parties quarrelled.

Problems escalated in February 2016 resulting in the defendant leaving the parties' home for his uncle's home. For the past month the parties had not communicated nor been physically intimate. The defendant had also not provided the plaintiff with any financial support for that period. The plaintiff, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

During mediation, which had been unsuccessful in reconciling the parties, it was agreed that the parties' child would remain in the care of the plaintiff, while the defendant would provide the plaintiff with IDR 1 million per month in 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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Moreover, that the parties' marriage could not realise the purpose of marriage as contained in the Qur'an, Surah Ar-Rum, verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 5 May 2012 and had one child, who was currently in the care of the plaintiff. On 26 January 2016, the parties had divorced, after which time they had agreed that their child would remain in the care of the plaintiff. In this instance, the plaintiff, in order to alleviate certain difficulties already encountered while trying to enrol the parties' child for school, had lodged an application to amend certain documents. These included the parties' child's family card (Kartu Keluarga) and national identity number (Nomor Induk Kependudukan).

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds that the parties' child was still underage.

The parties were married on 7 April 2008 and had two children. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By March 2009, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. had carried on an extra-marital affair with another woman;
2. did not have permanent employment; and
3. had verbally and physically abused the plaintiff.

After physically abusing the plaintiff in February 2012, the defendant left the parties' home. Familial attempts to make the parties reconcile had also been unsuccessful. The plaintiff, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, 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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Moreover, that the parties' marriage could not realise the purpose of marriage as contained in the Qur'an, Surah Ar-Rum, verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 10 July 2000 and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By September 2003, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. was not transparent with his finances, only earning enough to support himself;
2. had physically and emotionally abused the plaintiff; and
3. had disrespected the plaintiff's older sister, calling her a crazy widow ('janda gila').

Problems escalated in September 2005 resulting in the plaintiff leaving the defendant and returning to her parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the next 10 years and 10 months. The plaintiff, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, 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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Moreover, that the parties' marriage could not realise the purpose of marriage as contained in the Qur'an, Surah Ar-Rum, verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 4 January 2014 and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By December 2014, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. frequently failed to return home, for no apparent reason;
2. refused to acknowledge the parties' child as his; and
3. failed to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial support.

Problems escalated in June 2015 resulting in the defendant leaving the plaintiff. The parties had remained separated since. The plaintiff, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, 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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Moreover, that the parties' marriage could not realise the purpose of marriage as contained in the Qur'an, Surah Ar-Rum, verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on an undisclosed date and had one child. At the beginning of the marriage the defendant was unemployed and the plaintiff had to work to cover daily expenses. After eight years, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. would frequently use drugs, sometimes returning home in the middle of the night or the next morning in an intoxicated state;
2. frequently physically assault the plaintiff, even threatening to kill her; and
3. had carried on an extra-marital affair with another woman.

The plaintiff also submitted that since the parties had lived together, the parties' domestic life had become increasingly deleterious due to regular quarrelling. Moreover, that the plaintiff was deeply concerned for her own welfare and that of the parties' child if they remained living with the defendant. Since July 2014, the plaintiff left the parties' home, with their child, to live with her parents in Cirebon. Familial attempts to make the parties reconcile had failed. The plaintiff, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), as well as custody of the parties' child.

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. Furthermore, despite the defendant's absence from court, pursuant to art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it granted the plaintiff custody of the parties' child as the child was still pre-pubescent (belum mumayyiz) and below 12 years of age.

The applicant submitted that he and the respondent were married on 25 March 1976 and had five children. As the respondent had suffered a stroke in 2008, the applicant submitted that he intended to marry another woman. Moreover, that his IDR 3 million per month salary was sufficient to meet the needs of both his current and prospective wives, as well as his children.

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds that the applicant was financially capable of providing for his wife and children, pursuant to art 58(1)(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Furthermore, as provided by art 8(a)-(f) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as arts 39-44 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, there were no grounds to prohibit their marriage between the applicant and his prospective second wife.

The applicant submitted that he and the respondent were married on 5 February 2004. The respondent, however, was unable to fall pregnant, and the applicant submitted that he intended to marry another woman in order that he could have a child. Moreover, his IDR 4.3 million per month salary was sufficient to meet the needs of both his current and prospective wives, as well as any future children.

In acceding to the applicant's request, the court acknowledged that the reasons and criteria for polygamy contained in arts 4(2) and 5(1) in Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage had been met. The court also cited verse 3 of Surah An-Nisa' from the Qur'an, which permits a man to take up to four wives.

The applicant submitted that he and the respondent were married on 10 September 1992 and had three children. The parties' first child was born with a mental handicap. The respondent then gave birth to triplets but only two of the triplets survived. After giving birth to the triplets, the respondent was no longer able to conceive. Having had three sons, however, the applicant wished to have a daughter. After obtaining what the applicant submitted to the court was the respondent's consent in writing to his taking another wife, the applicant now sought the court's permission to do so.

The court dismissed the application, however, when the respondent submitted orally that she had never provided the aforementioned written consent. Accordingly, the court found that the applicant's request had failed to meet the necessary requirements contained in art 5(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 58(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The applicant submitted that he and the respondent were married on 5 January 1991 and had two children. The respondent, however, subsequently suffered from a heart condition, shortness of breath and high blood pressure. Her health problems had prevented her from being physically intimate with the applicant, who had a heightened libido. The respondent had also consented to the applicant taking another wife to prevent him from committing adultery. The applicant submitted that his IDR 2 million per month salary was sufficient to meet the needs of both his current and prospective wives, as well as the parties' children.

In acceding to the applicant's request, the court acknowledged that the reasons and criteria for polygamy contained in arts 4 and 5 in Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage had been met. The court also cited verse 3 of Surah An-Nisa' from the Qur'an, which permits a man to take up to four wives.

The parties were married on 20 November 2011 in Ogan Komering Ulu regency. Their three-year old son was currently under the care of the plaintiff. The parties' marriage had been harmonious for the first two years. Since 2013, however, the marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the defendant was frequently angry with the plaintiff without good cause;
2. the defendant would frequently beat the plaintiff;
3. the defendant's family frequently meddled in the parties' affairs; and
4. the defendant no longer provided the plaintiff with financial support.

Problems escalated in June 2013, compounded by the defendant marrying another woman surreptitiously (nikah sirri), unbeknownst to the plaintiff. Recognising that she was no longer happy in her marriage, as mandated by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her a divorce.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. Acknowledging that the plaintiff's application accorded with art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with 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 granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro) on the grounds that the parties had been apart for two or more years, and ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 7 September 2010 and had one child who was currently under the care of the respondent. The parties had not been living together because the applicant's work commitments meant he was rarely able to return home. Moreover, the respondent needed to live with, and care for, her aged parents. The applicant submitted that given his high libido, and that because he could not be with the respondent, it would be preferable for him to take a second wife instead of committing adultery (zina). The respondent, the applicant submitted, had no objections to his request. The applicant also claimed that he would be able to care for both his wives and child given his monthly salary of IDR 4,650,000.

In acceding to the applicant's request, the court, pursuant to the elucidation of art 49(2)(i) of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, noted that it had absolute authority to adjudicate the case. Furthermore, as the respondent had acceded to the applicant's request, all prescriptive requirements, as contained in art 5(1)(a) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 41(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 58(1)(a) and (2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, had been met.

The parties were married on 10 September 2007 but had no children. The plaintiff's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry (mahar) had been IDR 2 million and a prayer instrument. Since the beginning of 2008, however, the marriage had been disharmonious, primarily because the defendant would frequently leave the matrimonial home, even for up to one year at a time. On 3 January 2013, the defendant left for Java in search of employment, never to return. While the plaintiff had waited for three years and six months for the defendant to return, realising that the purpose of marriage, as prescribed in Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, had been frustrated, the plaintiff filed an application for a judicial divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court acknowledged that the information provided by the plaintiff's two witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions, and that the defendant had not returned home for over three years. The purpose of marriage, as prescribed in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, that being to create an everlasting and joyful family, was no longer feasible. Pursuant to 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 plaintiff's application on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two years.