SHARIAsource

In 1955, 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 water buffalo 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 three 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.

This fatwa defines underhanded marriage (nikah di bawan tangan) as 'a marriage that meets all the pillars and requirements stipulated at fiqh (Islamic law), but without being officially registered with the authorised agency as regulated in legislation.' The fatwa states that underhanded marriage is lawful because it meets the requirements and pillars of marriage, but haram (forbidden) insofar as it creates a problem or loss. Therefore, marriage must be officially registered to prevent such a problem or loss.

This fatwa forbids interfaith marriage, stating that it is illegal and contrary to the teachings of the Qur'an.

This fatwa states that, historically, the pronouncement of marriage vows (sighat ta'liq talaq) protected the rights of the woman as the wife. Marriage vows are now no longer necessary, however, because of the establishment of the Marriage Counselling, Mentoring and Preservation Body (Badan Penasihatan Pembinaan dan Pelestarian Perkawinan), which exists at the central level all the way to the sub-regency level.

MWNUK published this report to inform Muslim women in Britain about their rights regarding marriage and divorce. It includes case studies and answers questions they commonly receive. Written to also assist academics, policymakers, religious authorities, and other relevant organizations, the report provides a comprehensive overview of the secular and religious legal problems Muslim women may face in obtaining a divorce.

The applicant sought dispensation to have his daughter (15 years, 4 months) marry her fiance. The applicant submitted that their relationship had been close-knit for the past eight months and that he was concerned they may contravene Islamic law provisions if not married immediately. The applicant also submitted that his daughter was virginal, pubescent (akil baliq) and ready to become a wife.

The court noted that it had unsuccessfully advised the applicant to wait until his daughter was of age. Moreover, that as the applicant's daughter was under the age of 16 years, his request accorded with art 7 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The court acknowledged that despite the applicant's daughter's age, physically and mentally she appeared suitable for marriage, and her relationship with her fiance appeared close-knit and gave cause for concern that they might become physically intimate soon. Therefore, pursuant to art 7(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, the court granted the applicant dispensation for his daughter to marry. This also accorded with the Qur'an, Surat An-Nur, verse 32.

The applicant submitted that she and her husband were married on 31 May 1973 and had had four children. On 27 January 2016, however, the applicant's husband passed away. The applicant discovered that, according to her marriage certificate, her deceased husband's place of birth was Kediri, whereas his actual place of birth was Ambon. In order to access her husband's pension the applicant needed her marriage certificate to be amended accordingly.

The court, pursuant to art 34(2) of Regulation of the Minister of Religion No. 11 of 2007 on Marriage Registration, and arts 34 and 35 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds that the applicant had produced documentary evidence (her husband's identification card) establishing her deceased husband's actual place of birth.

The applicant requested that the court grant his son (aged 17) dispensation to marry his girlfriend (aged 18), with whom he had been been romantically involved for approximately eight months, and with whom he had been physically intimate on at least three occasions resulting in her falling pregnant. The applicant submitted that his application to the Office of Religious Affairs for his son to marry had been dismissed because his son was under the age of 19 and, therefore, did not meet the minimum age requirements contained in art 7(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 15(1) and (2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Minister of Religion Regulation No. 11 of 2007 on Marriage Registration.

The court, pursuant to art 7(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, acceded to the application. It did so on the grounds that the applicant's son and his girlfriend had already been romantically involved for a significant period of time and loved each other, evidenced by the fact that they had already agreed to marry in the future. Moreover, granting them dispensation to marry would preclude them from continuing to conduct themselves in a detrimental (mafsadat) way.

The applicant submitted that he had married a woman by the name of M binti S on 25 November 1996, with whom he had a child aged 15 years and 8 months (born on 29 September 1997). The child had requested the applicant's permission to marry, and the applicant had granted his permission because he considered his child already an adult and in love with her fiance, who was 20 years and 3 months of age (born on 21 March 1993). Moreover, the applicant's child and her fiance had known each other for a year and had been engaged since March 2013. The applicant had already requested the permission of the head of his local Office of Religious Affairs, but the application had been dismissed.

The applicant had, therefore, filed an application with the court for a judicial determination granting his daughter permission to marry as a minor. After receiving the counsel of the court, however, the applicant withdrew his application and agreed to postpone his child's wedding until she was of age.

The applicant submitted that he had married a woman by the name of L binti M on 11 June 2013, with whom he had two children. One of his children was already married, while the other was aged 15 years and 4 months (born on 2 February 1998). The applicant's second child had requested the applicant's permission to marry her fiance, and the applicant had granted his permission because he considered his child already an adult and in love with her fiance, who was 25 years and 10 months of age (born on 26 August 1988). Moreover, the applicant's child and her fiance had known each other for three months, and the applicant was concerned his daughter and her fiance would soon consummate their relationship regardless. The applicant had already requested the permission of the head of his local Office of Religious Affairs, but the application had been dismissed on 11 June 2013.

The applicant, therefore, filed an application with the court for a judicial determination granting his daughter permission to marry as a minor. In acceding to the application, the court, pursuant to art 7(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, acknowledged that the applicant's daughter was not the required 16 years of age a female must be before she can marry. On the facts, however, the court acknowledged that the applicant's daughter and her fiance were already emotionally dependent on one another, were engaged, and that there were no other bars to their marriage. The requirements for marriage dispensation contained in arts 7(2), 8 and 9 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 15(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the elucidation of art 49(2) and (3) of Law No. 7 of 1989 as amended by Law No. 3 of 2006 and Law No. 50 of 2009, had, therefore, been met.

The applicant submitted that, on 2 July 1984, he had married Khairum Sofia binti Nurdin in accordance with Islam at the local office of religious affairs in Seruway, Aceh Tamiang. They had three children, all of whom were married, the youngest of whom was the respondent. Khairum Sofia binti Nurdin had died on 8 January 2014 due to illness. An official record of their marriage had been lost during a flood in 2006 and the applicant had submitted an application that his nuptials be ratified in order that he might access his retirement pension.

The respondent's submission corroborated with all of the applicant's submissions except the submission that he was the applicant's biological child from his marriage to Khairum Sofia binti Nurdin. In actual fact, the respondent submitted, he was the biological child of the applicant's first marriage to a woman named Aminah. Acknowledging this fact, the applicant withdrew his application as it stood. The court acceded to the applicant's withdrawal.

The applicants submitted that they were married on 16 May 2016. When they read their marriage certificate, however, they noticed that both their names had been recorded incorrectly. As evidence, the parties submitted their residency permits (Kartu Tanda Penduduk), which contained the correct spelling of their names. The parties requested that the court grant them dispensation to have their names recorded correctly on their marriage certificate. The court, pursuant to art 6(2)(a) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 34(2) of Minister of Religion Regulation No. 11 of 2007, acceded to the parties' application.

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 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 applicant submitted that she and her deceased husband were married, in accordance with Islamic law, on 7 May 1991 and had one child. They had already had their marriage ratified but had lost their marriage certificate in the tsunami.

On the evidence produced by the applicant, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(b) and (e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to her application.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic law on 15 March 2005 in Klang, Malaysia, and had one child. Since they had married the parties had never obtained a marriage certificate in either Malaysia or Indonesia. Regardless, the parties requested that the court ratify their marriage.

On the evidence produced by the applicants, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and citing kitab I'anatut Thalibin, vol IV, page 254, acceded to their application.

The applicants submitted a request to have their marriage ratified. On the day their application was her in court, however, they failed to attend or send any proxies in their place. The court, therefore, ruled that their application failed and ordered them to pay costs (IDR 211,000).

The applicant married the first respondent on 21 May 2006, and the parties had their first and only child on 30 January 2009. Throughout their marriage the parties had never quarrelled and had executed their spousal duties appropriately. On 29 August 2014, however, the applicant married the second respondent, without having the marriage recorded officially (a siri (clandestine) marriage). The marriage was officiated by the second respondent's father, and witnessed by the second respondent's neighbour and the applicant's neighbour. The applicant claimed his relationship with the second respondent prior to marrying her was not in contravention of shari'a, that being that the two respondents were not related, nor was he related to the second respondent; and the second respondent was a divorcee and not engaged to another man. The applicant and second respondent were also expecting their first child, the second respondent being seven months pregnant. The applicant also maintained that he could meet his wives' daily needs, as well as those of their children, given his salary (IDR 2.5 million per month). Furthermore, the applicant maintained that he had been fair to both his wives, the relationship between the two respondents had not been problematic, the applicant had been able to demarcate what constituted the joint assets of he and the first respondent, and the first respondent's parents did not object to his marrying the second respondent.

As all parties had failed to attend court, however, the court dismissed the application, commenting that the parties were not treating the matter with any seriousness.

This government regulation is concerned with the implementation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. In terms of divorce, art 19 of this Regulation provides the courts with six different reasons to grant an application for divorce, as required by art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974.

This regulation regulates the marriage registration administrative process, including necessary documentation required to be provided to Population Services and the Civil Registry.