SHARIAsource

The plaintiff submitted that, in March 2014, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly. This was primarily due to the defendant not providing her with sufficient financial and emotional support, as well as the defendant having had an extra-marital affair with another woman. On 29 April 2014, the defendant divorced his wife verbally before both their parents; however, by 5 June 2014, the parties had reunited. Two weeks later, the defendant allegedly went back to the woman with whom he was having an extra-marital affair and, since then, the parties had remained separated.

Before the court, however, the plaintiff withdrew her application orally, stating that she and the defendant had reconciled their differences. The defendant concurred and the court acceded to the parties' decision.

The plaintiff submitted that, in March 2012, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel because the defendant would socialise with teenagers and return home in the middle of the night. When the plaintiff would inquire with the defendant as to why he had been out so late, the defendant would become angry and, while arguing with the plaintiff, start to damage household items, and physically assault the plaintiff, causing her to collapse.

In May 2012, the parties quarrelled because the defendant would often invite friends to spend the night. The plaintiff found this to be an invasion of her privacy. Then, in October 2014, the parties quarrelled because the plaintiff had misheard an instruction of the defendant, causing the defendant to become angry and manhandle the plaintiff in front of the defendant's parents. The quarrelling between the parties went on unabated until October 2014, when the parties separated.

While judicial mediation had been unsuccessful, the plaintiff declared during the proceeding that she had reconciled with the defendant and wished to withdraw her application for divorce. The court acceded to the plaintiff's decision.

The plaintiff submitted that, since 2008, she and the defendant had quarrelled often because:

1. the defendant was frequently duplicitous, confessing to the plaintiff about his most recent extra-marital affair; and
2. if arguing with the plaintiff, the defendant would resort to profane language, once hitting the plaintiff.

Before the court, the plaintiff submitted that she wished to withdraw her claim, acknowledging the she and the defendant had reconciled their differences. The court acceded to the plaintiff's decision.

The parties were married on 12 January 1979. By mid-1995, however, their relationship had become strained. The applicant submitted that this was in large part due to the respondent often accusing the applicant of having an extra-marital affair, despite the applicant reassuring her that he never had, as well as the respondent showing a general lack of care and respect for the applicant. Problems escalated in October 2000 when the respondent, still accusing the applicant of being unfaithful, instructed the applicant to leave their home. The parties had remained separated since and the applicant believed their differences were irreconcilable.

The court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), on the grounds of ongoing conflict, and that the parties had been separated for more than two years, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) and (b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and (b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The applicant submitted that, since the parties' marriage on 14 June 2013, he and the respondent had never been physically intimate because the respondent refused, and that even when they slept in the same bed, the respondent would place a doll between them. In addition, the applicant claimed that the respondent did not want to execute her responsibilities as a wife, including cooking and serving food, even when the applicant would do so himself, with the help of the respondent's parents.

In August 2014, the applicant felt he could no longer cope with the respondent's attitude and decided to leave the matrimonial home. Attempts by family to reconcile the parties were to no avail, as was judicial mediation. Moreover, the respondent failed to attend court, despite having been summonsed formally. The court found that ongoing conflict between the parties, 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, was sufficient reason to grant the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The parties were married on 6 March 2012 and had two children. The applicant, however, submitted that, since approximately 2011, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. This was the result of the respondent:

1. showing no appreciation for the applicant as her husband;
2. instructing the applicant to leave their home;
3. directing profane language at the applicant;
4. not wanting to move house when asked by the applicant; and
5. going to an undisclosed location without the applicant's permission.

Problems escalated in December 2011 resulting in the applicant leaving the respondent for two years and six months. The applicant attempted to reconcile with the respondent, but to no avail.

Despite being summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend the proceeding. Regardless, the court found that ongoing conflict between the parties, 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, was sufficient reason to grant the the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The plaintiff submitted that, in January 2011, the defendant left the plaintiff for one year and three months, without the plaintiff's permission. The plaintiff acknowledged that the parties had quarrelled regularly because the defendant did not want to work at the plaintiff's family's mechanic's garage.

The court acknowledged the defendant had failed to meet points 2 (failure to provide the plaintiff with financial support for a duration of three months) and 4 (no longer care for the plaintiff for a duration of six months) of the couple's marriage vows (shigat taklik thalak). Pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it granted the plaintiff a divorce granted in exchange for monetary compensation (thalak satu khul'i) for a IDR 10,000 dispensation fee (iwadh).

The parties were married on 16 August 2013. The plaintiff submitted that, as early as September 2013, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. This was the result of:

1. the defendant's parents meddling in the parties' domestic affairs, and their appearing not to like the defendant;
2. the defendant directing profanities at the plaintiff when the plaintiff would counsel him; and
3. the defendant not providing the defendant with enough financial support, even once saying to the plaintiff: 'kan lah di agiah makan tu, makan tu la nafkah ma (I've given you food, eat it).'

Problems escalated in March 2014 when the plaintiff felt their problems were irreconcilable, and while the defendant's parents continued to meddle in the parties' domestic affairs. The plaintiff left the matrimonial home and the parties had been separated since. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 10 June 1975, had eight children, and had lived together harmoniously for seven years, up until 1982, when they started to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of the defendant:

1. often going out at night and returning in the middle of the night, or not at all;
2. rarely being at home, and more often than not spending his time out of the house; and
3. often gambling.

Problems escalated in 2002 when the defendant married another woman, repudiating his marriage with the plaintiff. Despite efforts from both the plaintiff and defendant's families to make the parties reconcile, as well as the court advising the plaintiff against divorce, the court found that ongoing conflict between the parties, 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, was sufficient reason to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (thalak satu bain shughra).

The parties were married on 11 February 2001 and had one child. The applicant submitted, however, that around September-October 2013, he and the respondent had begun to quarrel regularly. This was the result of:

1. the respondent's distrust of the applicant, whereas the applicant provided the respondent space and time for her own activities;
2. an increasing incompatibility and difference of opinion between the two parties;
3. the respondent requesting the applicant return her to her family, which the applicant interpreted as the respondent wanting to separate from the applicant, despite the respondent returning to the applicant after being counselled by her older sibling; and
4. the above incidents leaving the applicant feeling uncomfortable in the respondent's presence and his feelings towards the respondent somewhat dissipated.

Indeed, the applicant and respondent had not been physically intimate since 2008.

The respondent refuted many of the applicant's submissions, primarily that the applicant's own sexual dysfunction caused by a blood condition, as well as his constantly playing golf, had caused the aforementioned rift.

After judicial mediation proved unsuccessful, 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 applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent maintenance costs of IDR 30 million backdated six months, as well as IDR 15 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), and IDR 25 million for mut'ah (divorce compensation).

The parties were married on 4 February 1994 and had one child born on 20 October 1996. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since February 1996, the parties' marriage had become fractured. This was the result of the defendant:

1. never providing the defendant with financial support;
2. often directing profanities at the plaintiff, leaving the plaintiff feeling deeply hurt;
3. physically abusing the plaintiff; and
4. threatening the plaintiff with divorce.

Problems escalated in December 2012, resulting in the parties separating. Any and all physical intimacy between the parties also ceased. The parties' families had counselled them to reconcile, but to no avail.

The defendant failed to attend court, despite having been summonsed formally. Regardless, the court, pursuant to 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 (talak satu ba'in sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 4 March 2013 and had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, at least since 2013, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious. This was the result of:

1. a lack of compatibility and constant difference of opinion between the parties;
2. the defendant no longer providing the plaintiff with emotional and financial support; and
3. the defendant's lack of financial transparency.

The parties separated in 2013 and had not been physically intimate for approximately six months leading up to the proceeding. The plaintiff maintained that she had attempted to reconcile her differences with the defendant by talking to him, but to no avail.

Despite being summonsed formally, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding. The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and arts 33 and 34 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, as well as on the grounds of the defendant's repudiation of arts 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage vows (sighat ta'lik thalak), pursuant to art 119 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 25 May 2001. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had become disharmonious in 2003 because:

1. the parties had not conceived a child for the first ten years of their marriage, and the respondent had stated she did not want to have the applicant's children, nor continue being his wife;
2. the respondent felt that the applicant never provided enough financially;
3. the respondent often rebutted the applicant's advice and directed profane language at him; and
4. the respondent always accused the applicant of spending the applicant's parents' money.

Problems escalated in April 2003 with the respondent, unbeknownst to the applicant, leaving the matrimonial home as a result. The efforts of both parties' families to reconcile the parties were unsuccessful, and the respondent failed to attend formal mediation proceedings. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu roj'ie) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 19 May 2012. They had no children. The applicant submitted that, since the beginning of June 2012, he and the respondent had quarrelled regularly. This was the result of:

1. the parties' frequent difference of opinion;
2. the appellant reverting to Christianity (Protestantism) from Islam; and
3. the respondent's temperamental and emotional nature, which would often result in the respondent becoming vulgar and using profane language, which left the appellant feeling that to continue domestic life with the respondent would be untenable.

Consequently, the parties had separated for approximately six months leading up to the proceeding. The applicant had also attempted to deliberate with the respondent to reach a truce, but to no avail. Accordingly, the applicant applied to the court for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The respondent disputed the applicant's three primary submissions, maintaining that it was the applicant who was temperamental, aggressive, and had threatened to divorce the respondent. More specifically, it was the applicant who had instigated the quarrelling so that he had a legal reason to divorce the respondent (ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975), because he had already reverted to Christianity, and had become involved with another woman.

In her counterclaim, the respondent sought the following monetary compensation, in accordance with the applicant's monthly salary of IDR 20 million: IDR 45 million for iddah (100-day period following divorce) and IDR 150 million for mut'ah (divorce compensation). The respondent also asserted that she had spent IDR 104,568,000 of her own money on the apartment in which the parties had lived in Central Jakarta prior to marrying the applicant, as well as IDR 69.5 million on personal effects (total: IDR 174,068,000).

While the court acceded to the applicant's claim that the parties' marriage was untenable, it could not grant the applicant himself a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) because he had already reverted to Christianity. Instead, pursuant to the 2010 revised edition of the Guidelines on the Implementation and Administration of the Religious Judiciary (Pedoman Pelaksanaan Tugas dan Administrasi Peradilan Agama), it granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) and ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 15 million for iddah, as well as IDR 50 million for mut'ah. The court acceded to the respondent's claim that she had paid IDR 174,068,000 of her own money towards accommodation and personal effects prior to marrying the applicant, stipulating the monetary value of the parties' joint assets as IDR 53,832,000. The court ordered the applicant to transfer to the respondent IDR 26,916,000, and to auction the parties' property and divide the proceeds if necessary. The court also ordered the applicant to pay costs of IDR 416,000.

The parties were married on 9 December 2004 and had two children. The applicant submitted that on 12 November 2012 the respondent had left the parties' home taking with her 30 grams of gold that belonged to the applicant's aunt. Twelve days later, the respondent's father came to the applicant's home saying that the respondent had returned to his home, but that the respondent had not confessed to taking the applicant's aunt's gold. The respondent refuted the reason she left home, stating that she had been told to leave by the applicant's cousin and that even the applicant's aunt had directed profane language at her, leaving her with no option but to leave. Since then the applicant and respondent had been separated for 22 days. The applicant conceded that the respondent's family had tried to make the parties reconcile, but to no avail.

As a counterclaim, the respondent sought custody of the children as their mother, as well as IDR 500,000 in child support from the applicant, per child, per month. The respondent also sought a further IDR 1,200,000 in back-dated maintenance fees.

In response to the respondent's counterclaim, the applicant submitted that the respondent was unfit to take care of the children, that he would not pay the requested child support if the children were in the respondent's care, and that the back-dated maintenance fees were not payable because the respondent had left him with their two children.

The court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Pursuant to art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, however, the court granted custody of the children to the respondent as they were under the age of discernment (mumayyiz) or under the age of 12, while ordering the applicant to pay to the respondent child maintenance of IDR 300,000 per month, until the children become of age.

The parties were married on 16 August 2002 and had two children. The parties had lived harmoniously until May 2011; however, the plaintiff submitted that she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly since January 2013. This was primarily due to:

1. the defendant confessing before his family to having had an extra-marital affair;
2. continuous irreconcilable arguing and fighting between the parties;
3. the defendant having breached his marriage vows (taklik-talak); and
4. the defendant having not been physically intimate with the plaintiff since September 2013.

Problems escalated in September 2013 resulting in both parties returning to their respective parents' homes. The plaintiff had attempted to reconcile with the defendant by bringing their families together to deliberate, but to no avail. The court was also unsuccessful in its attempts to counsel the plaintiff to reconcile with the defendant. In the defendant's absence, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 39 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 parties were married on 21 March 2001 and had three children. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been disharmonious since July 2013 because:

1. the applicant could no longer fulfil the emotional and material needs of the respondent;
2. the respondent did not perceive the applicant to be a good head of the family;
3. the respondent did not value or take heed of the appellant's advice;
4. the respondent felt the applicant was too controlling;
5. the applicant felt denigrated and belittled by the respondent;
6. the respondent's family meddled in the parties' domestic affairs; and
7. the respondent had already left the parties' home without saying anything or requesting the applicant's permission.

The parties had lived separately since August 2013 and had not been physically intimate with each other since September 2013. Before the court, however, the applicant requested that his application for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) be withdrawn. The court, pursuant to art 54 of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, acceded to the applicant's request.

The parties were married on 25 September 2005 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly since October 2010. This was a result of, among other things:

1. the parties not being able to agree on how to manage their finances;
2. the plaintiff no longer being able to be physically intimate with the defendant due to her own mental health issues;
3. the parties holding different views on how to educate their children; and
4. the parties no longer communicating.

The plaintiff claimed that she had already tried to work with her family and the defendant to save the marriage, but to no avail. Judicial mediation was similarly unsuccessful. The plaintiff, however, then made a verbal request before the court that her application be withdrawn. Pursuant to art 54 of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, noting that the defendant had no objections.

The parties were married on 6 September 1986 and had three children. The applicant submitted that, from October 2003, he and the respondent had quarrelled often. This was a result of:

1. a difference of opinion regarding domestic affairs;
2. a tendency to argue over the same matters repeatedly;
3. the parties no longer caring about each other, while the applicant busied himself with work-related matters to avoid further arguments with the respondent; and
4. there having been no physical intimacy between the parties for four years.

Problems escalated on 25 June 2012 when an argument between the parties resulted in the applicant leaving the matrimonial home. After judicial mediation proved unsuccessful, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 18 February 2002 and had two children. The applicant submitted, however, that, since 2003, he and the respondent had quarrelled regularly. This was a result of:

1. incompatibility and a difference of opinion as to domestic affairs;
2. the respondent not obeying the applicant; and
3. the respondent often sharing embarrassing family stories with other people.

Problems escalated in October 2013 resulting in the parties separating, the applicant moving to his parents' home. Since then the parties had not been physically intimate.

The respondent dismissed many of the applicant's claims, qualifying that while she and the applicant had quarrelled, their problems were still reconcilable. Moreover, that she had been an obedient and respectful wife and had not shared embarrassing family stories with other people. The respondent claimed that the applicant had confessed his own infidelity to her, and that this was the primary cause of the rift in their marriage.

Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the applicant a revorcable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance, as well as IDR 1.5 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), IDR 2 million for mut'ah (divorce compensation), and IDR 2 million in back payments.