SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 18 July 2012 and had one child. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By the beginning of 2014, however, when the plaintiff enrolled in an undergraduate university degree, the parties began to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant would become unnecessarily jealous, and intoxicated frequently. The defendant also had an aversion to praying (sholat) and fasting. In May 2014, after another argument, the defendant left the parties' home, since which time the parties had remained separated. During those seven months the defendant had also failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. The plaintiff, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The court, pursuant to art 19(a) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(a) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of both the defendant's alcoholism and ongoing conflict. It also acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, being a happy and joyful domestic life, as prescribed in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as a peaceful, hopeful and loving marriage, as contained in art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and verse 21 of the Qur'an, Surat Ar-Rum, was no longer feasible.

On August 3, 2022, the Sharia Court of Appeal of Kwara State in Nigeria at Ilorin decided in Mohammed v. Mohammed that a deceased man’s second and third wives were not entitled to inheritance under Islamic estate laws because he married his first wife under the secular Marriage Act. The man’s second and third wives were suing upon his death for inheritance claims under sharīʿa, but the Court held that, for those marriages to have been valid under sharīʿa, the man would have had to divorce his first wife, whom he had married under the Marriage Act and not according to norms of Islamic law. By contrast, because the deceased had married his first wife under the Marriage Act, the Court held that the law governing the distribution of his estate was the law of Kwara State, not Islamic law, or sharīʿa.

The deceased, who passed away on 18 January 2007, was survived by his second wife (respondent), as well as his first wife and children (first-eighth appellants). One of the primary issues of the dispute concerned the marriage status of the respondent to the deceased.

In overturning the decision of the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court), the Court found that, pursuant to art 38 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, if the deceased had wanted to repudiate his marriage to the respondent, he needed to have filed for divorce prior to his passing. Moreover, a marriage is formally repudiated by filing for repudiation with the Religious Court/Shari'a Court, pursuant to art 25 of Law No. 1 of 1974, arts 37 and 38 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 74(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The deceased had never followed such procedure to repudiate his marriage to the respondent.

Even if he had successfully repudiated his marriage to the respondent, the Court noted that the deceased's legal relationship to the respondent and their children (all three of whom were underage) would not cease, as per arts 75 and 76 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and art 28 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The Court also dismissed the appellants' argument that the decision of the Banda Aceh State Court regarding the falsification of the respondent's marriage certificate was grounds for repudiation of her marriage to the deceased.

The Court found that for the first appellant, with whom the deceased had acquired property before he married the respondent, one-half of that property became the first appellant's, as well as one-third of the property the deceased had acquired while married to both the first appellant and respondent. The same could be said of what constituted the property of the deceased, viz. one-half of what the deceased had acquired while married to the first appellant, and one-third of what the deceased had acquired while married to both the first appellant and respondent.

The parties were married on 27 March 1984 and had three children. By January 2008, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was due to the defendant's inability to meet the family's financial needs, as well as the defendant having married another woman. Problems escalated in December 2011 resulting in the parties sleeping in separate beds. During this time the defendant, the plaintiff submitted, had failed to provide her with any financial or emotional support. Feeling the marriage was beyond repair, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra).

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 plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 22 August 2006 and had two children. By November 2012, however, the marriage had deteriorated. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of economic hardship, and the parties separated in 2013.

The plaintiff submitted to the court that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, and, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 431,000).

The parties were married on 20 March 2015, after which time they had lived with the plaintiff's parents until August 2015. While the parties had already consummated their marriage they had no children. In September 2015, the parties had separated after the defendant left the plaintiff to go on a motorcyle tour of Bali. Since the defendant's departure, the parties had remained separated for eight consecutive months, during which time the defendant had not contacted the plaintiff, nor provided her with any financial support. The defendant's conduct was in direct contravention of his marriage vows (taklik talak). The plaintiff, therefore, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i) of IDR 10,000.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, 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's conduct had contravened his marriage vows.

In November 2021, the UAE government issued a new personal status law from Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahayan, president of the UAE federation of seven emirates, titled Law No. 14 of 2021 Concerning the Personal Status of Non-Foreigners Muslims in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. The law covers civil marriage, divorce, alimony, joint child custody, proof of paternity, and inheritance. Most notably, this new law allows for civil marriage, not just marriage under Islamic law. It allows expats, tourists, and non-residents to marry in Abu Dhabi and allows foreigners to follow their home countries’ laws on matters of inheritance and divorce.

The parties were married in 1994 and had three children (born 10 September 1995, 27 November 1998 and 17 April 2001). The parties’ marriage was never formally registered. In 2007, the parties separated and the applicant married another woman, whom the applicant divorced in 2011. On 18 October 2011, the parties married again, this time formally registering the marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs. The marriage deteriorated and, in May 2014, the respondent left the applicant and never returned. The parties stopped communicating and, on 15 December 2014, the applicant filed for a divorce.

The applicant submitted that during the marriage:

1. despite the applicant providing the respondent with his entire monthly salary (IDR 2 million per month), the respondent always requested more money from the applicant;
2. the respondent often left the house without asking the applicant or informing the applicant where she was going;
3. the respondent prioritised herself over the applicant and their children, and failed to carry out her duties as a housewife; and
4. the respondent often communicated with other men via telephone.

The applicant submitted to the court that the marriage was irreconcilable and requested permission to divorce the respondent.

Despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request, finding that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, 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 court costs (IDR 791,000).

The parties were married on 5 September 1999, the plaintiff's father acting as the parties' wedding guardian (wali nikah). The parties had two children. The parties' marriage certificate (buku nikah), however, had not been issued, and when the plaintiff inquired with the Sekupang Office of Religious Affairs as to its status, it became apparent that the marriage had never been officially registered.

After the first year of marriage, the plaintiff alleged that the parties had begun to quarrel because the defendant:

1. had not provided the plaintiff and their children with sufficient financial support, only working for himself, without showing any care for the plaintiff and their family;
2. had a temperamental nature, always physically assaulting the plaintiff if the parties had a verbal disagreement;
3. often left the matrimonial home without any reason, returning home in the middle of the night or the next morning;
4. would prioritise himself over the plaintiff and their children, not purchasing the children clothing, for example; and
5. had already divorced (pronounced talak) the plaintiff on 28 April 2003 on paper (with stamp-duty paid).

After divorcing the plaintiff, the defendant had left her and their children, ignoring the plaintiff's attempts to reconcile and reunite. The plaintiff believed that divorce was now the only feasible option. The plaintiff also sought custody of the children, who were already living under her care, the defendant having shown no interest in their well-being.

In ratifying the parties' marriage, the court acknowledged that the plaintiff had submitted a marriage ratification application for the purposes of divorce, pursuant to art 7(3)(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. It also conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, and Manhaj al-Thullab juz VI, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 28 June 2013. For the first year of their marriage they had lived happily with the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since 2014, the parties' marriage had become disharmonious. She claimed this was a result of:

1. the defendant's jealousy and accusations that the plaintiff was having an extra-marital affair with another man; and
2. the defendant often becoming emotional and angry for no apparent reason, and, while in fits of rage, causing damage to the plaintiff's coffee stall.

The parties had remained separated since July 2014, during which time they had not been physically intimate. Family intervention seeking to make the parties reconcile had been unsuccessful, and the plaintiff, believing the parties' differences to be irreconcilable, sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

Firstly, the court acknowledged the purpose of marriage, as per the Qur'an (surah Al Rum, verse 21), art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, as being a joyful and enduring relationship based on love and the belief in One Almighty God. Acknowledging that the parties' marriage no longer resembled this, and pursuant to the elucidation of art 37 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 court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 361,000).

The parties were married on 15 January 2012 and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By May 2013, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. had carried on an extra-marital affair with another woman;
2. had frequent differences of opinion with the plaintiff regarding finances to the extent that the defendant no longer worked nor provided for the plaintiff; and
3. would verbally and physically abuse the plaintiff when the parties quarrelled.

Problems escalated in February 2016 resulting in the defendant leaving the parties' home for his uncle's home. For the past month the parties had not communicated nor been physically intimate. The defendant had also not provided the plaintiff with any financial support for that period. The plaintiff, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

During mediation, which had been unsuccessful in reconciling the parties, it was agreed that the parties' child would remain in the care of the plaintiff, while the defendant would provide the plaintiff with IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance. 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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Moreover, that the parties' marriage could not realise the purpose of marriage as contained in the Qur'an, Surah Ar-Rum, verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 27 December 2006 and had one child. The plaintiff's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry (mahar) had been IDR 200,000 and a prayer instrument. Since the beginning of 2015, however, the marriage had been disharmonious. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant:

1. would regularly become angry with the plaintiff for no apparent reason;
2. would regularly leave the parties' home, unbeknownst to the plaintiff; and
3. rarely provided the plaintiff with financial and emotional support.

On 25 June 2016, problems escalated when the defendant confessed to having had an extra-marital affair. The defendant then left the plaintiff without first informing her, never to return. Realising that the purpose of marriage, as prescribed in Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, had been frustrated, the plaintiff filed an application for a judicial divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra).

The court acknowledged that the information provided by the plaintiff's two witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions, and that the defendant had not returned home, nor had he provided a forwarding address. The purpose of marriage, as prescribed in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, that being to create an everlasting and joyful family, was no longer feasible. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court therefore acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 10 October 1998. They lived together and had two children (aged 14 and 8). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By November 2013, however, the defendant had left the plaintiff without providing her any further support. The parties ceased communication. The plaintiff claimed that the circumstances had caused the marriage to deteriorate irreparably, and requested the court grant her a divorce for a fee (talak satu khul’i).

The court found that the marriage was irreparable and could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and that the plaintiff’s reasons for the claim satisfied the requirements of arts 34(3) and 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court granted the plaintiff a judicial divorce (talak satu khul’i) and ordered the plaintiff to pay divorce compensation to the defendant in the amount of IDR 10,000 (uang iwadl), and to pay all court costs (IDR 346,000).

The parties were married on 3 January 2013. Their marriage was arranged by their parents, and they had never been in love with one another. While they had lived together for two months, they had never consummated their marriage. Moreover, the defendant had ordered the plaintiff to return home to Meuria Paloh, after which the defendant verbally divorced the plaintiff over the telephone. The parties had not lived together since 9 March 2013, and the plaintiff had not returned to the defendant after the defendant orally divorced her.

Despite the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in shughra), acknowledging that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and surat Al-rum verse 21, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan warahmah) homelife was no longer feasible. Moreover, that, 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, ongoing conflict between the parties was sufficient reason to grant a divorce.

The parties were married on 22 July 2008. They lived in the plaintiff’s grandmother’s home for five years and had one child (aged 6). Initially, the marriage was harmonious. By 2012, however, they had begun to quarrel regularly. One of the main causes of dispute was which school their child should attend.

Problems escalated in February 2013, and the plaintiff left the defendant and the matrimonial home to live with her parents. The parties remained separated for two years during which time they communicated, but the defendant did not provide the plaintiff with any financial support. In 2015, the plaintiff sought a divorce on the grounds that the parties' differences were irreconcilable. Pre-trial mediation had also proved to be unsuccessful.

The court found that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 3 and art 77(1) and (2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a happy and harmonious home life, was no longer feasible. Therefore, there were sufficient reasons, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 19(f) and (b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and (b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The parties were married on 25 June 2006, had lived together in the plaintiff’s parents' home for two years, and had one child (aged 8). Initially, the marriage was harmonious. By June 2007, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had never provided her with financial support, and that the defendant would often leave the plaintiff without any warning or reason. The marriage deteriorated and the defendant moved to his parents' house. The plaintiff claimed that these circumstances had led to irreconcilable disharmony in the marriage, and requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in sughro).

The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surat Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to the elucidation of art 37 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds that the parties had been apart for longer than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 22 December 2007 and had one child (deceased). The plaintiff submitted that, since the beginning of 2015, the parties' marriage had become disharmonious because the defendant:

1. would become excessively jealous;
2. no longer provided the plaintiff with financial support, saving his income for himself;
3. often used profane language, ordering the plaintiff to leave the home when enraged, always demanding a divorce; and
4. often threatened the plaintiff verbally by provoking the plaintiff to divorce him promptly, then pronouncing talak (verbal divorce) himself.

Problems escalated and, in March 2015, the plaintiff left the defendant, believing divorce was the only feasible option.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 8 January 2013 but had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, since 24 July 2014, the marriage had become disharmonious because:

1. the parties quarrelled regularly, their differences seemingly irreconcilable;
2. the defendant failed to provide his family with sufficient financial support; and
3. the parties were no longer compatible.

Problems escalated when, on 12 August 2014, the defendant arrived in Kendari from Jaya Pura, and only spent one night with the plaintiff before leaving for Bau-Bau without informing the plaintiff or her parents. The parties then remained separated for the next year. Consequently, the plaintiff felt that divorce was the only feasible option remaining.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 1 September 2005 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that, since May 2008, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair, and was often intoxicated. When problems escalated not long after, the defendant left the matrimonial home and the parties remained separated for the next seven years. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 20 May 2007 and had lived with the respondent's parents. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. By 2012, however, it had become quarrelsome. By mid-2013, the respondent's family had begun to meddle in the parties' domestic affairs. The applicant also submitted that, after six years of marriage, the parties had no children, to the applicant's dismay. By July 2013, the parties had separated, and had agreed to divorce and return to their respective parents' homes.

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.