SHARIAsource

The applicant sought dispensation from the court in order that his underage son (17 years, 9 months) could marry his fiancee (19 years). The court, pursuant to art 7(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, acceded to the applicant's request, primarily because she was already two months' pregnant with their child.

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 court ratified the appellants' Islamic marriage of 8 November 1991, and ordered them to register their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs. Pursuant to art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court found no reason to preclude the ratification of the marriage.

The applicant sought dispensation to enable her 15 year old daughter (DOB: 9 July 1999) to marry her boyfriend. The applicant claimed that all relevant requirements to conduct an Islamic marriage had been met, other than that her daughter was four months shy of being 16 years of age (the required age at law). The applicant emphasised the urgency of the matter given that her daughter and her boyfriend had already displayed signs that they intended to become physically intimate, something prohibited under Islam if out of wedlock. While the Office of Religious Affairs had dismissed her application to register their proposed marriage, the applicant submitted that there were no legitimate reasons that they should not be married.

The court acceded to the application, stating that the two had already agreed they wished to marry one another, that they loved each other, that their engagement had been assented to by both their parents, that the Office of Religious Affairs had dismissed their application to register their marriage, and that they would conduct themselves contrary to the law if they were permitted to marry. Accordingly, the court granted dispensation to marry, pursuant to art 7(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 15(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The court granted dispensation for the child applicant to marry, while ordering marriage registration officials to initiate, register and supervise the marriage.

The applicant was the father of a child (18 years and eight months; DOB: 18 May 1996) who wanted to marry his fiancee. The applicant's child and the child's fiancee had already received the blessing of both his and her families to marry. The applicant had made all the necessary administrative arrangements with the relevant village office (Kantor Desa) and Office of Religious Affairs, but his application had been dismissed on the grounds that his child was under the legislated age of 19. Accordingly, the applicant sought dispensation from the court so that his child's marriage could be expedited.

The court granted the necessary dispensation, pursuant to art 7(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 15(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, convinced that the relationship was legitimate and that if they were not permitted to marry, they would most likely conduct themselves in an illegal manner (become physically intimate).

The applicant and his wife were married on 18 November 1995, in accordance with Islamic tradition before a local Office of Religious Affairs Marriage Registrar. They would have three children. When the applicant applied for a birth certificate for one of his children, however, he discovered that his name had been incorrectly recorded on his marriage certificate, which precluded his child's birth certificate from being issued. Accordingly, he sought a stipulation from the court to rectify this problem.

The court acceded to the applicant's request to correct his name on his marriage certificate.

The applicant and his wife were married on 4 November 1991, in accordance with Islamic tradition before a local Office of Religious Affairs Marriage Registrar. They would have three children. When the applicant applied for a birth certificate for one of his children, however, he discovered that his name had been incorrectly recorded on his marriage certificate, which precluded his child's birth certificate from being issued. Accordingly, he sought a stipulation from the court to rectify this problem.

The court granted the applicant's request to correct her name on her marriage certificate.

The applicant had encountered problems registering the birth of her second child due to her marriage certificate (dated 26 September 2001) not including her correct name. Accordingly, she submitted to the court a request for permission to change her name as it appeared on her marriage certificate, as well as a fee exemption. She was married on 26 September 2001 and lived with her husband and two children (aged 12 years, and 3 months).

The court, pursuant to art 33(4) of Decision No. 298 of 2003 of the Minister of Religion on Marriage Records, acceded to the applicant's request based on her producing to the court satisfactory proof of identity.

This Supreme Court circular is designed to accelerate the process of voluntary marriage ratification by providing prospective applicants with a set of guidelines and instructions to which they must adhere in order to ensure their marriage is formally ratified.

This Supreme Court pronouncement states that while a non-Muslim wife who survives her Muslim husband cannot be considered a beneficiary (ahli waris), she remains entitled to inherit her portion of his estate as his wife, pursuant to a wasiat wajibah (obligatory will).

In this case, the cassation applicant had challenged the decision of the Makassar High Religious Court (59/Pdt.G/2009/PTA). As the lawful wife of the deceased, who had passed away on 22 May 2008 (they were married on 1 November 1990), the Court stated that as the deceased and cassation applicant had been married for 18 years, and as the defendant had devoted herself to the deceased while he was alive, it was immaterial that she was a non-Muslim. Moreover, that she was entitled to receive a portion of the estate of the deceased, as well as a portion of their joint assets as husband and wife.

This ministerial regulation regulates the procedural requirements related to the marriage, divorce and reconciliation of Ministry of Defence officials, in terms of requesting and obtaining the permission of their superior officer to marry, divorce or reconcile with their spouse.

This ministerial regulation makes provision for marriage guardians for prospective brides who do not have a marriage guardian who meets the requirements set out in Islamic law, that is, a blood relative Muslim man from their father's side. The regulation mandates that that marriage guardian is to be a ministerial-appointed Head of the Office of Religious Affairs Registrar.

This legislative instrument regulates the marriage registration process, specifying the government bodies and agents authorised to ratify and register marriages.

The parties were married on 26 November 2010, after which they had lived in Malang for five years and had one child. Upon receiving their marriage book (buku nikah) they had realised that it incorrectly stated the second applicant's place of birth was Yogyakarta, when in actual fact it was Sleman. As a result, the second applicant had encountered certain professional administrative obstacles. Accordingly, the applicants sought an amendment to their marriage book.

Pursuant to arts 1870 and 1865 the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata), and arts 1(5) and 34(2) of the Regulation of the Minister of Religion No. 11 of 2007 on Marriage Registration, the court acceded to the applicants' request.

The applicant's husband, Usman bin Abd. Latif, passed away in 2001 due to illness. He and the applicant had married in 1955 in Baiturrahim Mosque in Beutong, Labuhan Haji Timur, South Aceh, and had five children. Usman had worked as a farmer his whole life and never had a steady income. The applicant did not hold a certified marriage certificate, however, which she needed in order to apply for a passport so that she could embark on the hajj. Therefore, she requested that the court ratify her marriage.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court found that the applicant's marriage to the deceased met the requirements of marriage according to Islam, as enunciated in art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, it met the requirements of art 7(3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, in that the marriage took place prior to the enactment of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

In 1972, the applicants were married in accordance with Islamic law at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's father served as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), two witnesses were present, and the dowry was a bicycle purchased with cash. The applicants were first cousins, however, this did not preclude them from marrying according to Islam or current laws. They subsequently had three children. Moreover, the applicants had never shared a wet-nurse, nor did anyone object to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicants, however, had never received an official marriage certificate because their marriage had taken place in 1972, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The applicants, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of their marriage in order to access state subsidies such as the pension.

Acceding to the applicants' request, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, noted that as the marriage had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, it qualified as the type of marriage that could be ratified.

In 1959, the applicants were married in accordance with Islamic law at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's father served as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), two witnesses were present, and the dowry was a 10 acre property. The applicants were second cousins, however, this did not preclude them from marrying according to Islam or current laws. They subsequently had three children. Moreover, the applicants had never shared a wet-nurse, nor did anyone object to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicants, however, had never received an official marriage certificate because their marriage had taken place in 1959, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The applicants, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of their marriage in order to access state subsidies such as the pension.

Acceding to the applicants' request, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, noted that as the marriage had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, it qualified as the type of marriage that could be ratified.

On 25 July 1959, the applicants were married in accordance with Islamic law at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's father served as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), two witnesses were present, and the dowry was a palm tree purchased with cash. The applicants were second cousins, however, this did not preclude them from marrying according to Islam or current laws. Moreover, the applicants had never shared a wet-nurse, nor did anyone object to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicants, however, had never received an official marriage certificate because their marriage had taken place in 1959, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The applicants, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of their marriage in order to access state subsidies such as the pension.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court noted that the marriage had met the requirements that there be two witnesses present, that there be a marriage guardian present, and that their be a dowry. Therefore, for the purposes of art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and arts 4(1) and 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the applicants' marriage could be declared lawful.

In 1960, the applicants were married in accordance with Islamic law at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's grandfather served as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), two witnesses were present, and the dowry was a six-acre ricefield purchased with cash. The applicants were second cousins, however, this did not preclude them from marrying according to Islam or current laws. Moreover, the applicants had never shared a wet-nurse, nor did anyone object to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicants, who had had five children, had never received an official marriage certificate because their marriage had taken place in 1960, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The applicants, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of their marriage in order to access state subsidies such as the pension.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court noted that the marriage had met the requirements that there be two witnesses present, that there be a marriage guardian present, and that there be a dowry. Therefore, for the purposes of art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and arts 4(1) and 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the applicants' marriage could be declared lawful.

The applicant had married her husband on 26 July 1963, in accordance with Islam, before having eight children. While they were second cousins, their relationship was not forbidden under Islam as they had not shared a wet-nurse, nor were there any objections to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicant's husband passed away due to illness on 3 June 2011, and in order to gain access to his pension, as well as her entitlements as a widow, the applicant required a marriage certificate. As they had married prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, however, one had never been issued. The applicant, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of her marriage.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds that it had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, found that the marriage could be ratified.