SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 21 October 2009. Their apparent inability to conceive a child had caused tensions that had led the defendant to accuse the plaintiff of being infertile. As a result of the defendant's accusations, the parties had been separated for the past two years. The defendant had even divorced the plaintiff in writing on 21 October 2015. The plaintiff submitted that all the aforementioned reasons were reason enough for her to request an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

After hearing from the plaintiff's witnesses, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. 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, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The applicant submitted that she had married her husband on 24 December 1955 at her home in Banda Aceh, prior to the enactment of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), two witnesses had been present, and the dowry (mahar) had been IDR 50. The respondent was the younger sibling of the applicant's husband as her husband had died on 24 October 2014 due to illness. The applicant and the deceased had had five children.

The applicant submitted that in order to administer her deceased husband's affairs, including accessing his superannuation/retirement fund, she required a determination from the court ratifying the marriage. Based on the facts presented by the applicant, the court acceded to her request and ratified the marriage.

The parties were married on 23 January 1986. Before marrying, the applicant was a bachelor and the respondent a virgin. They had lived with the respondent's parents for a year before moving into their own home in Kuala Simpang Ulim. While they had 11 children, their marriage had been quarrelsome after one year. The applicant submitted that this was because the respondent:

1. would ignore his advice;
2. was not a competent homemaker; and
3. when the parties would quarrel, would go quiet, thus making it difficult to resolve the problem.

On 19 April 2010, the parties separated after yet another argument. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had failed and the applicant, accordingly, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The respondent refuted the applicant's submissions, stating that it was the applicant who instigated their arguments, and that she would go quiet in order to prevent arguments. The respondent also stated that if the applicant were to divorce her she would require IDR 50,000 per day for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted).

After corroborating the applicant's submissions with information provided by two of the applicant's witnesses, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties. The court also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 500,000 for iddah.

The applicants requested that the court ratify their marriage of 5 May 2004. Based on evidence provided by two impartial witnesses, the court acceded to the applicants' request.

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.

The parties were married on 15 November 2000 and had four children. At the time of the proceeding, the defendant was serving an eight-month prison sentence for having beaten the plaintiff on 25 October 2014. The plaintiff submitted that entering the third year of their marriage, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. This was due to:

1. a difference of opinion over domestic matters;
2. the defendant's insistence on using profane language and physically assaulting the plaintiff when they would argue, resulting in the plaintiff having to see a psychologist; and
3. the defendant having carried on an extra-marital affair with another woman, to whom he had also provided financial assistance.

The parties had been separated, as a result, since November 2014. The plaintiff, therefore, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), and that it order the defendant to provide her with maintenance back-payments.

The court found that the marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. It was, therefore, satisfied that the plaintiff 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 plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The court also cited fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) from Kitab Al Muhadzdzab juz II, page 164, and Kitab l'anatut Thalibin, page 85, both of which state that a husband is to provide maintenance back-payments to his wife in the event he had neglected to provide for her and their children for a period. It distinguished this fiqh, however, on the grounds that the parties had been separated for that time. In regards to the parties' four children, the court ordered that the two children under the age of 12 (belum mumayyiz) remain in the custody of the plaintiff. Accordingly, it ordered the defendant to pay to the plaintiff at least IDR 800,000 per month until the children reach the age of 21.

The applicant submitted that she intended to marry her fiance in the regency of Pidie. She requested that the court grant her father, aged 48, dispensation to marry the two. The court, pursuant to art 23(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and art 2(1) and (3) of Minister of Religion Regulation No. 2 of 1987, acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds that she had convinced the court of her love for her fiance, which had been corroborated by evidence provided by two witnesses.

The two applicants submitted that they were married by a qadi in accordance with Islam at the second applicant's parents' home in 1975 before two witnesses, and with the second applicant's older brother acting as the marriage guardian (wali nikah). The parties had seven children. Their marriage was never objected to by any third party and both parties had remained Muslims for the duration thereof. The parties' marriage certificate had been lost in the 26 December 2004 tsunami and, in order to have passports issued, they needed to produce a new marriage certificate. Accordingly, they requested that the court ratify their marriage.

In acceding to the applicants' request, the court acknowledged that the applicants had produced sufficient evidence, including witnesses, that established their submissions. The court cited fiqh from Kitab l'anatu al Thalibin, Juz II, page 308, which states that the admission of an adult male of sound mind to having married a woman, and vice versa, can be accepted. The court also cited art 7(2) and (3)(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws in acceding to the applicants' request.

The parties were married on 30 December 1993 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become disharmonious since the birth of their first child in 1994. Specifically, the defendant had:

1. been irresponsible towards his family; and
2. developed a mental illness.

The parties then separated in February 2015, the defendant returning to his parents' home and from then on failing to provide for the plaintiff and the parties' children financially. The plaintiff submitted that she believed the marriage was beyond repair and that an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) was her only option.

In dismissing the application, however, the court noted that while the plaintiff had produced a witness to corroborate her submissions, that witness' evidence had not been supported by other evidence.

The parties were married on 16 August 2013 and had one child. Their marriage had been harmonious until mid-2015, after which time it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. was unemployed, meaning he was unable to provide for the plaintiff and the parties' child, forcing the plaintiff to rely on her parents for financial support;
2. would frequently leave the parties' home after shalat magrib (sunset prayers), returning the next morning, then spending much of the day in bed; and
3. would frequently direct profane language at the plaintiff.

The plaintiff submitted that whenever the parties would argue, the defendant would resort to slapping, kicking, and strangling the plaintiff. Problems came to a head in May 2016, resulting in the defendant leaving the plaintiff to live with his parents. The parties had remained separated for the past five months. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been unsuccessful and the plaintiff, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Ar-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, regarding the supposed tranquility of marriage.

The parties were married on 12 November 2010 and had one child. Their marriage had been harmonious initially, but by the beginning of 2011 it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. would frequently leave the parties' home without first informing the plaintiff; and
2. would frequently direct profane language at the plaintiff.

The plaintiff submitted that whenever the parties would argue, the defendant would resort to slapping, kicking, and hitting the plaintiff with a plank of wood. Problems came to a head in July 2016, resulting in the defendant leaving the plaintiff to live with his parents. The parties had remained separated for the past four months. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been unsuccessful and the plaintiff, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughro).

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Ar-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, regarding the supposed tranquility of marriage.

The parties were married on 21 August 2000 and had two children. Their marriage had been harmonious for the first seven years, but by the beginning of 2007 it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent had carried on an extra-marital affair with another man on 1 November 2016. When the applicant learned of the respondent's extra-marital affair he left her, returning to live with his parents.

The parties had remained separated for the past month. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been unsuccessful and the applicant, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

Despite the respondent's absence, 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. The court also cited Ar-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, regarding the supposed tranquility of marriage.

The parties were married on 3 December 2012 and had one child. Their marriage had been harmonious for the first year, but by January 2014 it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant would frequently:

1. mention the money with which he had provided the plaintiff as though she did not deserve it; and
2. direct profane language at the plaintiff when the parties would argue, as well as threatening to divorce the plaintiff.

Whenever the parties would quarrel, the defendant would leave the parties' home, taking with him all his clothes. In August 2016, the plaintiff answered a call from another woman on the defendant's mobile phone at 2.00am. When the plaintiff inquired with the defendant as to the identity of the woman, the defendant answered dishonestly and then returned to his parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the past two months in the lead up to the proceeding. The plaintiff, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro).

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Ar-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, regarding the supposed tranquility of marriage.

The parties were married on 21 September 2004 and had four children. Their marriage had been harmonious for the first eight years, but, in October 2012, the defendant, with the plaintiff's permission, left the parties' home to work in Jakarta. At the end of 2013, the defendant returned to Sawahlunto but, for no reason apparent to the plaintiff, chose to live at his parents' home rather than with the plaintiff and their children. The parties had remained separated since. For the past three years, the defendant had also failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial assistance. The plaintiff's attempts to reconcile with the defendant had failed. The plaintiff submitted to the court that the defendant's conduct had repudiated sub-arts (1), (2) and (4) of the parties' marriage vows (taklik talak). The plaintiff, therefore, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i).

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Ar-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, regarding the supposed tranquility of marriage.

The parties were married on 7 July 2002 in accordance with Islamic shari'a. Having never complied with marriage administrative requirements, the parties did not hold a marriage certificate. The parties also had two children. They had been married happily for 12 years but, by the end of 2014, the parties' marriage had become disharmonious after the respondent carried on an extra-marital affair with another man. In March 2015, the parties separated. The applicant requested that the court ratify the parties' marriage and grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). After the applicant failed to attend the proceeding, however, the court dismissed the application.

The parties were married on 27 June 1991 and had three children. Their marriage had been harmonious for the 19 years but, in 2010, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant would frequently:

1. become suspicious of the plaintiff for no apparent reason; and
2. direct profane language at the plaintiff when the parties would argue.

In July 2016, the defendant again directed profanities at the plaintiff and then drove her to her younger brother's home, before returning to his parents' home himself. The parties had remained separated for the past three months in the lead up to the proceeding. The plaintiff, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro).

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Ar-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, regarding the supposed tranquility of marriage.

The parties were married on an undisclosed date and had no children. In June 2015, the defendant left the plaintiff and returned to his parents' home. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's conduct was in violation of figures (2) and (4) of the parties' marriage vows (taklik talak). The plaintiff, therefore, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i).

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the defendant had repudiated the parties' marriage vows. The court also cited Ar-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, regarding the supposed tranquility of marriage.

The parties were married on 2 March 2015. At the time of their marriage the plaintiff was a widow and the defendant a widower. Their marriage had been harmonious for one year and three months, but by July 2016 it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant could not accept the plaintiff's three children from her first marriage.

In August 2016 problems escalated, resulting in the plaintiff returning to her parents' home. The parties had remained separated for one month and two weeks approaching the proceeding. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been unsuccessful and the plaintiff, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughro).

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Ar-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, regarding the supposed tranquility of marriage.

The applicant submitted that the parties were married on 20 July 2007 and had two children. For the first five years their marriage had been harmonious but, by the end of 2012, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. was unsatisfied with the applicant's monthly salary;
2. had forbade the applicant from meeting with his parents and relatives and providing them with money;
3. had frequently directed profanities at the applicant and would request a divorce whenever the parties would quarrel.

On 7 August 2016, when the applicant returned home at around 10.00pm, the respondent directed further profanities at the applicant. The applicant then left the parties' home and returned to his family's home. The parties had remained separated for approximately two months since. The applicant's advice to the respondent had failed to change her behaviour and attitude. Believing the purpose of marriage, that being a peaceful, hopeful and loving family, was no longer attainable, the applicant requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

In her oral response in court, the respondent concurred with the majority of the applicant's submissions. The respondent did not, however, concur with the applicant's submission that the respondent had forbade him from providing his parents with money. Rather, she had only said that his salary was insufficient to meet their own needs as it was. The respondent submitted that her family had attempted to make the parties reconcile but that the applicant and his family had failed to respond to their initial attempts. Furthermore, the respondent submitted that she did not want the applicant to divorce her. If the applicant's request for a divorce were successful, however, the respondent requested that the applicant pay her:

1. IDR 1.2 million per month for three months (IDR 3.6 million) in unpaid spousal maintenance for the time the parties had already been separated;
2. IDR 1 million per month for three months (IDR 3 million) for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted);
3. a gold ring as divorce compensation (mut'ah); and
4. IDR 600,000 per month in child maintenance for their two children until they were adults and independent.

In response, the applicant submitted that he could only afford:

1. IDR 3 million in unpaid spousal maintenance;
2. IDR 900,000 for iddah; and
3. no divorce compensation (mut'ah).

In dismissing the applicant's request, the court justified its decision on the grounds that the parties had already been physically intimate with one another.

The applicant submitted that the parties were married on 7 May 2009. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By 2013, however, it had become disharmonious because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. did not value the applicant as her husband; and
2. frequently accused the applicant of carrying on an extra-marital affair with another woman.

The parties had been separated since 2014 and the applicant requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

In dismissing the applicant's request, the court noted that the respondent had successfully refuted the applicant's second submission. Specifically, witnesses had told the court that they had seen the applicant conducting himself in an inappropriate manner with the respondent's older sister.