SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 27 December 2006 and had one child. The plaintiff's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry (mahar) had been IDR 200,000 and a prayer instrument. Since the beginning of 2015, however, the marriage had been disharmonious. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant:

1. would regularly become angry with the plaintiff for no apparent reason;
2. would regularly leave the parties' home, unbeknownst to the plaintiff; and
3. rarely provided the plaintiff with financial and emotional support.

On 25 June 2016, problems escalated when the defendant confessed to having had an extra-marital affair. The defendant then left the plaintiff without first informing her, never 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 shughra).

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, nor had he provided a forwarding address. 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(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court therefore acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 26 May 2013 and had one child. The plaintiff's older brother had acted as the marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry (mahar) had been the cash value of 3.35 grams of gold. Since 25 July 2014, however, the marriage had been disharmonious. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant left in search of employment, never to return, and without leaving a forwarding address. 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 shughra).

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, nor had he provided a forwarding address. 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) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court therefore acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two 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 applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 10 March 2009 before two witnesses. The second applicant's sibling had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 30,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a widower and the second applicant a divorcee. The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties also had two children and no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge found that the parties' marriage met the requirements contained in art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws because there had been a bridegroom, groom, marriage guardian, two witnesses, and the parties had exchanged vows (ijab kabul). The judge also cited expert Islamic jurisprudence (Ahli Fiqhi) found in Kitab Buhyatul Mustarsyidin, which stated that a marriage affirmed by witnesses present was indeed a marriage. Therefore, pursuant to art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge acceded to the applicants' request.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 14 February 1982 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 100,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor (aged 34 years) and the second applicant a virgin (aged 27 years). The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties also had two children and no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge found that the parties' marriage met the requirements contained in art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws because there had been a bridegroom, groom, marriage guardian, two witnesses, and the parties had exchanged vows (ijab kabul). The judge also cited expert Islamic jurisprudence (Ahli Fiqhi) found in Kitab Buhyatul Mustarsyidin, which stated that a marriage affirmed by witnesses present was indeed a marriage. Therefore, pursuant to art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge acceded to the applicants' request.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 14 October 2014 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 360,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor (aged 18 years) and the second applicant a virgin (aged 19 years). The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had no children but no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge found that the parties' marriage met the requirements contained in art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws because there had been a bridegroom, groom, marriage guardian, two witnesses, and the parties had exchanged vows (ijab kabul). The judge also cited expert Islamic jurisprudence (Ahli Fiqhi) found in Kitab Buhyatul Mustarsyidin, which stated that a marriage affirmed by witnesses present was indeed a marriage. Therefore, pursuant to art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge acceded to the applicants' request.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 4 December 1999 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 100,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor (aged 19 years) and the second applicant a virgin (aged 17 years). The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had three children and no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge found that the parties' marriage met the requirements contained in art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws because there had been a bridegroom, groom, marriage guardian, two witnesses, and the parties had exchanged vows (ijab kabul). The judge also cited expert Islamic jurisprudence (Ahli Fiqhi) found in Kitab Buhyatul Mustarsyidin, which stated that a marriage affirmed by witnesses present was indeed a marriage. Therefore, pursuant to art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge acceded to the applicants' request.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 10 August 1998 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 100,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a widower (aged 31 years) and the second applicant a divorcee (aged 27 years). The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had four children and no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge requested that the parties withdraw their application on the grounds that they had failed to submit relevant evidence and produce witnesses.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 3 April 2001 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 10,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor (aged 29 years) and the second applicant a virgin (aged 28 years). The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had two children and no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge found that the parties' marriage met the requirements contained in arts 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws because there had been a bridegroom, groom, marriage guardian, two witnesses, and the parties had exchanged vows (ijab kabul). The judge also cited expert Islamic jurisprudence (Ahli Fiqhi) found in Kitab Buhyatul Mustarsyidin, which stated that a marriage affirmed by witnesses present was indeed a marriage. Therefore, pursuant to art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge acceded to the applicants' request.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a in 2004 before two witnesses. The second applicant's parents had acted as her marriage guardians (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 50,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor (aged 28 years) and the second applicant a virgin (aged 23 years). The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had two children and no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge found that the parties' marriage met the requirements contained in arts 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws because there had been a bridegroom, groom, marriage guardian, two witnesses, and the parties had exchanged vows (ijab kabul). The judge also cited expert Islamic jurisprudence (Ahli Fiqhi) found in Kitab Buhyatul Mustarsyidin, which stated that a marriage affirmed by witnesses present was indeed a marriage. Therefore, pursuant to art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge acceded to the applicants' request.

The parties were married on 6 October 2009. They had lived with the respondent's parents and had no children. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By May 2014, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent had failed to value the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Moreover, the respondent stopped coming home after she began carrying on an extra-marital affair with a man she had met at the discotheque at which she was employed. Problems escalated in June 2014 resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past two years and familial attempts to make the parties reconcile had failed. The applicant, accordingly, 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. 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 26 June 1998 and had two children, both of whom were in the custody of the respondent. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. By June 2000, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. frequently neglected her duties and responsibilities as a wife;
2. was stubborn when counselled by the applicant;
3. frequently opposed the applicant as his wife;
4. had a disharmonious relationship with the applicant's parents and siblings;
5. was excessively jealous and suspicious of the applicant; and
6. frequently uttered the word 'divorce' ('cerai') to the applicant.

The final argument between the parties occurred on 24 December 2016 for reasons which were not apparent to the applicant. The respondent then handed the applicant his clothes and told him to leave the parties' home. The parties had remained apart for the past 10 days, during which time the applicant had sought to reconcile with the respondent, albeit unsuccessfully. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

After receiving counsel from the court, however, the applicant agreed to withdraw his application. The court also acknowledged that the parties had sought to reconcile their differences.

The parties were married on 8 August 1998 in accordance with Islamic shari'a. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nasab), the dowry (mahar) had been IDR 10,000, and two witnesses were present at the time of the parties' nuptials. At the time of the wedding, the first applicant was a bachelor (duda) and the second applicant a virgin (perawan). The parties also had two children. They did not, however, have a marriage book (buku nikah) because, despite having already paid the necessary administrative costs, their marriage had never been registered with the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court grant them a determination ratifying their marriage.

In acceding to the parties' request, the court, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 10 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and arts 7(2) and 7(3)(c) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that the parties' marriage had been conducted in accordance with Islamic norms.

The parties were married on 21 March 2012 and had no children. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for the first eight months. Since August 2013, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. frequently neglected her duties and responsibilities as a wife;
2. frequently left the parties' home for no apparent reason, with no destination in mind, and without the applicant's permission;
3. was frequently stubborn when counselled by the applicant;
4. had accumulated debts unbeknownst to the applicant;
5. had a mother and sibling that frequently meddled in the parties' domestic affairs;
6. was frequently dishonest with the applicant;
7. had uttered the word 'divorce' ('cerai') to the applicant; and
8. had a disharmonious relationship with the applicant's family.

Problems escalated on 25 November 2015 when the applicant suggested that the respondent not leave the applicant's parents' home yet again. The ensuing argument led the applicant to order the respondent to leave his parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the past 13 months. The applicant had made several attempts to reconcile with the respondent, albeit unsuccessfully. The applicant, therefore, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

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 had a clandestine marriage on 4 February 1997 in Bandar Lampung, after which time they had lived in Kalianda for approximately three years, before moving to Kenten. They had three children, all of whom were, at the time of the proceeding, in the care of the defendant. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for 13 years, until April 2015, at which time the defendant had divorced the plaintiff, also in a clandestine manner. On 23 October 2015 the parties remarried, this time registering their marriage with their local Office of Religious Affairs. A week later their marriage became quarrelsome again because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. had financially deceived the plaintiff with regards to a business;
2. would always tell the plaintiff he regretted his decision to remarry, simultaneously ordering the plaintiff to leave the parties' home in front of their children;
3. was frequently angry with plaintiff; and
4. had not, since November 2015, provided the plaintiff with any spending money for household necessities, thereby compelling the plaintiff to work herself.

Problems escalated in November 2015 when the plaintiff requested that the defendant provide her some money. On this occasion, when the defendant became angry, the plaintiff decided that she could no longer cope with the defendant's treatment of her and that divorce was the only option. The parties had, as a result, remained separated for the five months leading up to the proceeding.

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 for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 18 January 1985. They had lived in Central Java for about 20 years before moving to a rental property in Sukajadi until they separated. They had two children and had been married for 25 years. Since 2010, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. would become unnecessarily angry on a regular basis;
2. was temperamental;
3. had frequently physically assaulted the plaintiff;
4. had carried on an extra-marital affair with another woman; and
5. had neglected the plaintiff and failed to provide her with financial support.

In 2015, after yet another argument, the parties decided to separate. They had remained apart for a year at the time of the proceeding. Familial attempts to make the parties reconcile had been unsuccessful and, having concluded that the parties' differences were irreconcilable, the plaintiff 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 12 June 2010 and had two children. Since December 2014 the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. had failed to provide financially for the plaintiff and their child;
2. frequently embarrassed the plaintiff on social media;
3. frequently contacted other women on his mobile phone; and
4. frequently said he would marry another woman.

Problems escalated and, on 10 December 2015, the plaintiff decided that she could no longer cope with the defendant's behaviour. After separating from the defendant for the past two months leading up to the proceeding, the plaintiff 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 15 July 2008 and had one child. Since July 2014 the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. had frequently physically assaulted the plaintiff;
2. had parents who would frequently meddle in the parties' domestic affairs;
3. was excessively suspicious of the plaintiff; and
4. would frequently besmirch the plaintiff's good name, telling the parties' neighbours and the plaintiff's colleagues that the plaintiff was difficult to deal with and that she had carried on an extra-marital affair with another man.

Problems escalated in mid-May 2015 when the plaintiff rejected the defendant's accusation that she had had an extra-marital affair with another man. When the defendant threatened the plaintiff with a knife the plaintiff left the parties' home. The parties had remained separated for the seven months leading up to the proceeding. Believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, and without any family members on which to rely or bring the parties to reconcile, the plaintiff 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 the Qur'an surah Ar-Rum verse 21, 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 20 October 2013 and had one child. Since April 2014 the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. was unmotivated to seek employment;
2. rarely provided sufficient financial support to meet the parties' domestic needs;
3. frequently directed profane language at the plaintiff; and
4. would leave the parties' home when the parties would quarrel, often for a week at a time.

Problems escalated in July 2014 when the plaintiff sought to provide the defendant with advice on a matter. The defendant left the parties' home and did not return. The parties had consequently been separated for one year and seven months. Believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), as well as custody of the parties' child.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 39(1) and (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. Furthermore, the court, pursuant to art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff custody of the parties' child given that the child was 1 year and 11 months old.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic law on 7 March 1992 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mahar) had been seven mayam worth of gold in cash. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor and the second applicant a virgin. The parties had never divorced nor had they left Islam (murtad). There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had two children. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The court cited Kitab l'anatu al-Thalibin, juz IV, page 254, and Kitab Ushu al-Fiqh by Abdul Wahhab Khallaf, as examples of Islamic norms that allow the ratification of a marriage based on facts such as those established by the parties. The court then, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 4 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, ratified the parties marriage based on the evidence produced by the applicants.