SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 26 May 1998 and had three children. Initially, their marriage had been harmonious. Since September 2012, however, it had deteriorated because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had:

1. been physically abusive towards the plaintiff;
2. had an extra-marital affair; and
3. secretly married another woman, unbeknownst to the plaintiff.

In February 2013, the plaintiff left the defendant, unable to tolerate his poor attitude, as well as the lack of financial support with which he provided the plaintiff. The plaintiff's attempts to reconcile with the defendant had also been in vain. As a result of the suffering the defendant's conduct had caused the plaintiff, the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option remaining was divorce, pursuant to art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

Based on the information before it, including witness statements, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, and Manhaj al-Thullab juz VI. Despite failing to attend the proceeding, the court acknowledged that the defendant had been summonsed officially, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 26 August 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, as early as November 2012, the marriage had deteriorated because the defendant had:

1. been dishonest with his finances insofar as he had saved a portion of his income for another woman; and
2. had an extra-marital affair with another woman.

Problems escalated and, on 16 December 2012, the defendant orally divorced (pronounced talak) the plaintiff before two witnesses, executed a document with the necessary stamp-duty stating as much, and left the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option remaining was judicial divorce, pursuant to art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

Based on the information before it, including witness statements, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, and Manhaj al-Thullab juz VI. Despite failing to attend the proceeding, the court acknowledged that the defendant had been summonsed officially, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 29 March 2007 but had no children. They had begun to quarrel as early as April 2007, after the defendant had reverted to Catholicism, having previously converted to Islam. That same month they separated.

The plaintiff maintained that her attempts to reconcile with the defendant had been in vain, and that the defendant's reversion to Catholicism had caused her great suffering. It followed that the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option remaining was divorce, pursuant to art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

Based on the information before it, including witness statements, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, as well as on the grounds that the defendant's reversion to Catholicism caused had disharmony in the parties' homelife, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) and (h) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, and Manhaj al-Thullab juz VI. Despite failing to attend the proceeding, the court acknowledged that the defendant had been summonsed officially, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 28 November 2010 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had deteriorated because the defendant, on 5 February 2011, had left the matrimonial home never to return. The defendant provided the plaintiff with no information as to his whereabouts. The defendant left no money for the plaintiff and, by September 2013, the plaintiff was forced to move to another city to look for work. The plaintiff sought a judicial divorce, pursuant to art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

Despite the defendant being absent from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff’s application. The court acknowledged witness evidence, provided pursuant to art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975. The court found that the parties' marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Therefore, pursuant art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 516,000).

The parties were married on 19 March 1988 and had four children. They lived on Java for 11 years, before moving to Balikpapan. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. By 2007, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. was dishonest regarding finances;
2. ignored the applicant if he reminded her to pray (sholat);
3. would overreact if the applicant asked her a question; and
4. had obstetric fistula, which prevented her from being physically intimate with the applicant.

The parties separated on 20 May 2013, after the respondent left the matrimonial home. The applicant submitted that he had suffered emotionally as a result and requested the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The Court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 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 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 Supreme Court jurisprudence repudiates the direction of a high religious court (Pengadilan Tinggi Agama) to a religious court (Pengadilan Agama) that it initiate a proceeding in order to witness the appellant divorce the respondent. This is because the legality of such a proceeding would first depend on obtaining the permission of the appellant's superior work officer, as well as the opinions of Badan Penasehatan Pembinaan dan Pelestarian Perkawinan (the Marriage Counselling, Mentoring and Preservation Body) and the appellant's immediate family.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that divorce (talak) is articulated as 'Menyatakan jatuh talak satu ba'in sugro dari Tergugat atas Penggugat' ('to declare an irrevocable divorce from the defendant for the plaintiff').

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.

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 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 parties were married on 14 May 2012 and had one child aged 3 years, who was in the care of the plaintiff at the time of the proceeding. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for the first five months. Since October 2012, however, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant was:

1. envious, even of his older brother; and
2. frequently angry for no apparent reason, which made the parties' home life unpleasant and disharmonious.

Problems escalated in November 2012 resulting in the defendant leaving the plaintiff. As familial intervention had failed to reconcile the parties' differences, the plaintiff submitted that divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) was the only feasible 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 5 May 2007 and had one child. The plaintiff was a divorcee and had a child from her previous marriage. The plaintiff submitted, however, that the parties' marriage had been disharmonious from the beginning because the defendant had:

1. been unemployed up until a year ago and had, therefore, been unable to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial support;
2. frequently pawned the plaintiff's belongings, including her camera, motorcycle, wedding ring, gas stove, and other furniture; and
3. been suspicious of the plaintiff, not allowing her to communicate with her ex-husband with whom she had a child.

The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's suspicions had not dissipated, even after the parties moved to live with the defendant's parents. Rather, the defendant's suspicions increased to such an extent that the defendant forbade the plaintiff from seeing her child from her first marriage. When the parties would quarrel, the defendant often resorted to physical violence, even whipping the plaintiff with a belt and damaging household items. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant's alcohol consumption compounded matters further and that he had even been unnecessarily suspicious of one of the plaintiff's married male customers.

The plaintiff submitted that problems escalated prior to Ramadhan in July 2014, when the defendant had frequently told the plaintiff to leave and that it would be better if the parties divorced ('lebih baik cerai saja'). On 30 September 2014, the plaintiff returned to her parents' home after the defendant ordered her to leave. On 4 October 2014, the plaintiff brought the parties' child to the defendant's home after she received a text message from the defendant making such a request. There the defendant trapped the plaintiff in a room where he strangled her with both hands, leaving the plaintiff powerless and unable to breathe.

Believing that the parties' marriage was damaged irreparably, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra). The court acknowledged that the parties' homelife was no longer harmonious, that the parties had been separated for seven months, and that familial intervention had failed to reconcile the parties' differences. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(1) 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, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

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 20 November 2012 before a marriage registrar from the local Office of Religious Affairs. They had no children. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage became quarrelsome since January 2013. This was because the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial contribution to their domestic life. Problems escalated in mid-2013 resulting in the respondent leaving the parties' home without first informing the applicant.

The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surat Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to the Elucidation of s 37 of Law No. 1 of 1974, s 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and s 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The respondent failed to attend court.

The applicant submitted that he and the respondent were married on 19 March 2010 and had one child, who was in the care of the respondent. The first the years of the parties' marriage had been harmonious, but since then they had become quarrelsome because the respondent was not prepared to be the wife of an Indonesian National Military (Tentara Nasional Indonesia) soldier. In June 2013, the respondent left the parties' home and the applicant's unit without the applicant's permission as her husband, or in an official capacity through the applicant's unit. The parties had remained separated since and the applicant had received dispensation as a member of the military to divorce the respondent.

The court was satisfied that the applicant had met the evidentiary burden contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, and, 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 for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also permitted the respondent to retain custody of the parties' child.

Translated, this fatwā reads as follows:

Number: 35

According to Islamic law, which of the spouses, who are separated because of incompatibility and by divorce, has the right to protect, educate and restrain their child?

Answer: According to Islam, the right to protect, educate and restrain these children belongs to the mother until the boy reaches the age of 7, and the girl 9.

See also in Kitab-ı Fıkhiyye.

23 November 1992 

Mufti of Komotini

(Seal and signature)

The cassation applicant and cassation respondent had been married for 14 years and had four children. The parties, however, had begun to quarrel because, as the cassation respondent had submitted, the cassation applicant was disrespectful to the cassation respondent as the husband and head of the household. The cassation applicant was stubborn and difficult to deal with, and not afraid of rebutting or opposing the cassation respondent's words and wishes.

The cassation applicant submitted that the cassation respondent had failed to meet certain legislative requirements associated with filing for divorce, namely, that as a public servant, the cassation respondent had not yet first obtained the permission of his work superior before filing for divorce.

The Supreme Court held that the Samarinda High Religious Court's decision could not be overturned because it had not applied the law incorrectly, nor had there been a contravention of applicable law, or a failure to meet any other legislative requirements that would render a decision null and void.

The parties were married on 8 October 2000 and had two children. Before the Pontianak Religious Court (lower court), the cassation respondent had submitted that, since 2008, her marriage to the cassation applicant had become strained because the cassation applicant would often belittle the cassation respondent's parents, leaving the cassation respondent feeling offended. There were also issues pertaining to the ways in which the parties' families managed a relevant business, as well as allegations from the cassation respondent that the cassation applicant had been physically violent towards her, which necessitated a police report. The lower court had, accordingly, granted the cassation respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra), pursuant to art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The cassation applicant appealed to the Supreme Court at cassation level on the grounds that the Pontianak High Religious Court, which had affirmed the decision of the lower court, had failed to summons him in an appropriate manner. The Supreme Court found that the cassation applicant had failed to establish this and, therefore, pursuant to art 30 of Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, as amended by Law No. 5 of 2004 and Law No. 3 of 2009, dismissed the appeal.