SHARIAsource

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s refusal to enforce an Islamic marriage contract, which called for a postponed dowry (mahr) owed by the husband to the wife upon death or divorce of $25,000. The Court found that the groom was coerced into signing the agreement, and thus it was not valid. The Court did not delve into the potential First Amendment Establishment Clause issues considered by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

The Texas Court of Appeals reversed a state district court’s decision to uphold an Islamic marriage contract that awarded the wife a deferred dowry (mahr), an amount agreed upon at the time of marriage and due to the wife from the husband or his estate upon death or divorce, of $50,000. The district court had concluded that the amount was due pursuant to a marital contract made by the parties “in contemplation of a forthcoming marriage,” constituting “a valid, binding, and enforceable contract under Sections 4.001-003 of the Texas Family Code.” The appellate court reversed and remanded to the lower court, concluding that the agreement was not a valid premarital contract under the state law, defined as “an agreement between prospective spouses made in contemplation of marriage,” because the religious wedding ceremony occurred before the contract was signed. As the contract fell outside of the definition of premarital contract, the Court concluded that it could not be enforced like one. 

This Court reversed the decision of the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County that prevented a wife from collecting her deferred dowry (sadaq), the dowry due from the husband to the wife upon marriage, a portion of which is deferred by agreement to be paid upon death or divorce. The husband argued that, under Islamic law, the wife forfeits her contractual right to the deferred dowry if, as here, she is the one to seek the divorce. This Court upheld the contract, holding that it was binding because there was a meeting of the minds, and the parties agreed that the deferred dowry would be due upon divorce.

In a divorce proceeding involving a prenuptial agreement (Islamic marriage contract) between a Muslim husband and wife, the California Court of Appeals considered the validity of a provision requiring the husband to pay 3,000 Jordanian dinars as well as 2,000 dinars of either cash or household furniture as a “deferred dowry” (known as mahr or ṣadāq) due to the wife upon death or divorce. The husband claimed that the deferred dowry is not due where, as here, the wife initiates the divorce proceeding. The court concluded that, regardless of the individual claims, requiring payment of one party to the other upon divorce was an example of prohibited “divorce profiteering” and that, “if the court had accepted the position of wife’s expert, the contract would not have been enforceable under the public policy of the state.” Accordingly, the Court upheld the lower court's decision not to enforce that provision of the agreement.

The plaintiff married her husband on 31 December 1945, upon which her husband gave her a 20-acre plot of land as a dowry (mahar). The plot of land had been controlled by the plaintiff's husband's younger sibling since 1983 until the present. When the plaintiff's husband passed away, her mother-in-law asked to use the land until she passed away herself. When her mother-in-law passed away, the plaintiff requested of the defendant that the land be returned to her, but the defendant refused to do so. The plaintiff had also sought to resolve this dispute in a familial manner through deliberation and by making polite requests, but the defendant had not responded in a favourable manner himself, compelling the plaintiff to instigate proceedings.

In response to the plaintiff's claim, the defendant submitted that, when the plaintiff married her husband, the defendant himself was not yet an adult and, therefore, could not have known that the land constituted the plaintiff's dowry. Moreover, that he had sold the land in order that he have some money when he married his wife. Two years later he re-purchased the land, but he did not want to return it to the plaintiff because he believed it to be his inheritance from his parents. The plaintiff asserted that, as the land the defendant believed to have previously belonged to his parents was 35 acres, and the dowry land was 20 acres, only 15 of those acres actually belonged to the defendant.

The court found that the evidence submitted by the defendant did not support his case, whereas evidence submitted by the plaintiff showed that the 20 acres in question had indeed been given by the plaintiff's husband to the plaintiff as a dowry on the day of their marriage. Accordingly, the court ordered the defendant to transfer to the plaintiff the 20 acres of land.

The cassation applicant had been successful in Bantaeng Religious Court Decision No. 107 of 2012 in reclaiming land gifted to her as a dowry when she married her husband on 31 December 1945. That decision, however, was overturned in Makassar High Religious Court Decision No. 140 of 2012.

The cassation applicant challenged the Makassar High Religious Court Decision on the grounds that it had incorrectly applied the law. The Supreme Court concurred with the cassation applicant, stating that a dowry (mahar) is a gift from a prospective husband to his prospective wife, announced before a marriage guardian (wali nikah) and witnesses, recorded in the marriage certificate, and something that cannot be taken back. The Supreme Court also disagreed with the Makassar Court's finding that the location and boundaries of the land in question were unclear, based on the findings of a local inspection conducted and submitted to the court.

This section of al-Jarīda al-Rasmiyya officially promulgates the first two books of the Moroccan Personal Status Code, the Mudawwana. The first book presents the stipulations concerning marriage, including issues such as the contract, dowry, and inhibitors (like number of wives). The second book deals with the dissolution of marriage, thus addressing conditions of repudiation, women’s repudiation, and the ʿidda (the woman’s waiting period until she may remarry).

This fatwa states that marriage, according to Islam, is something noble and sacred, intended as a sign of devotion to Allah. A lawful marriage according to Islamic teachings requires there be a bride and bridegroom, two witnesses, a guardian, consent, and a dowry. The fatwa appeals to all Indonesian Muslims, but especially to the younger generation, in order that they marry pursuant to the conditions contained therein.

In 1952, 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 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, however, had never received an official marriage certificate because their marriage had taken place in 1952, 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 art 7(1), (2) and (3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the applicants were lawfully husband and wife.

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.

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.

The Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce and custody of the parties' two children, and ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance. The lower court also stipulated as joint assets of the parties two properties (one in Aceh, one in North Sumatra), a parcel of land, three vehicles, some household appliances, a debt of IDR 33,333,344 in the name of Yulia Fitri owed to Bank BPD, as well as a debt of IDR 36,979,175 owed to Bank BPD in the name of the appellant. The appellant was also ordered to return to the respondent that part of her dowry (mahar) that he had already used in the form of 16 grams of gold.

The Court found no fault with the lower court's decision and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

The parties were married in Aceh Besar, in accordance with Islamic tradition, and had no children. The plaintiff's father had acted as the parties' marriage guardian (wali nikah), the dowry (mahar) was six grams of gold's worth in cash, and the plaintiff requested that the chief justice ratify the parties' nuptials in order that she might file for a judicial divorce. After two days of marriage, the defendant had left the plaintiff, never to return. Over the past seven years the plaintiff had not heard from the defendant, nor knew anything in regards to his whereabouts.

The plaintiff's application was dismissed, however, on the grounds that neither the plaintiff or defendant were in attendance. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 391,000).

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic tradition on 18 October 2010 before two witnesses at the second applicant's home in Simpang Mamplam, Bireuen. The second applicant's older brother served as the marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mahar) was seven mayam of gold. Moreover, there were no reasons according to Islam to prohibit the applicants from marrying. The applicants, who already had a child, requested that the court ratify their marriage.

The court acceded to their request on the grounds that the applicants' marriage met the requirements stipulated in arts 2(1) and 64 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 7(3)(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also directed the applicants to register their marriage with the Marriage Registry.

The parties were married on 28 April 2005 at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali), the parties' oral declaration (ijab) had been witnessed by a celebrant (penghulu nikah), two other witnesses were present, and the dowry (mas kawin) had been a IDR 20,000. At the time of the marriage the first applicant was 25 years of age, and the second applicant was 19 years. There were no bars to their marriage under Islam, and the parties already had two children. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified so that they could obtain a marriage certificate from the local Office of Religious Affairs, as well as birth certificates for their children. As the applicants had failed to attend court, however, the sole judge ruled a miscarriage.

The applicants submitted that they were married on 6 April 2006 in accordance with Islamic shari'a before two witnesses. The second applicant's older brother had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mahar) had been five grams of gold. The parties had one child. The parties submitted that they required a court determination ratifying their marriage in order to obtain a birth certificate for their child.

The court, pursuant to art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, ratified the parties marriage based on the evidence produced by the applicants. The court also cited Kitab l'anatu al-Thalibin, juz IV, page 254, as an example of Islamic norms that allow the ratification of a marriage based on facts such as those established by the parties.

The applicant submitted she had married Rudin bin Syeh Benu (deceased) on 16 November 1976 in accordance with Islamic shari'a before two witnesses. The applicant's uncle had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mahar) had been 10 grams of gold. The applicant and the deceased had had five children before the applicant's husband had died in 2003 due to illness. The applicant submitted that she required a court determination ratifying her marriage to the deceased before she could embark on the hajj.

The court, pursuant to art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, ratified the marriage based on the evidence produced by the applicant. The court also cited Kitab l'anatu al-Thalibin, juz IV, page 254, as an example of Islamic norms that allow the ratification of a marriage based on facts such as those established by 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 October 2013. While they had consummated their marriage they had no children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had only been harmonious for five days before becoming quarrelsome. This was because the defendant:

1. suffered from premature ejaculation;
2. had never provided the plaintiff with financial support but had provided his parents with such support;
3. had a tendency to leave the parties' home for two weeks or more on end, never leaving the plaintiff with any money to purchase groceries; and
4. was not transparent about his own finances.

The plaintiff also submitted that three months after their wedding, the defendant had borrowed the plaintiff's dowry (10 grams of gold) for his brother, the defendant's brother promising he would return it within two weeks. The defendant's brother would never return the dowry. Then, on 12 December 2014, the defendant returned to his parents' home ostensibly to pick fresh chilli. He never returned and on the 15th day his parents attended the local imam's home to issue a marriage annulment notice for the plaintiff. Since then the parties had officially separated. The plaintiff submitted that, as a result, the parties' marriage could no longer be peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah, warahmah). In order that the parties did not contravene legal and religious norms, the plaintiff submitted that it would be best for the parties to divorce.

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) and of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of the parties having been separated for more than two years and ongoing conflict respectively.