SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 4 June 1977 and had three children. The applicant submitted that the marriage had been harmonious until 5 March 2014, after which time the respondent refused to comply with the applicant's wish to sell the family home. The applicant maintained that he had wished to sell the home to provide his family with financial security following his own retirement. For the past two months, the parties had been sleeping in separate rooms, and the applicant's efforts to reconcile with the respondent had been in vain. Accordingly, he requested that the court grant him a divorce (talak).

In dismissing the applicant's request, the court found that the problem between the parties was not insurmountable, and that the respondent's lack of compliance with the applicant's wishes was because the applicant had intended to sell the family home, unbeknownst to the respondent. Moreover, the court believed it more important to save the parties' marriage, which had already survived the test of time. The court found 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, that being a happy and joyful family based on the principle of One Almighty God, was not lost. In addition, the applicant's grounds for divorce, being ongoing conflict pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was unfounded.

The parties' marriage was arranged. After only six days, the parties had begun to argue because:

1. they could not adjust to one another; and
2. the defendant had become romantically involved with another woman.

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 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, the court granted a divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict. Accordingly, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro).

The parties were married on 9 March 2010. On 2 January 2011, the respondent left the applicant without his permission or for any apparent reason, never to return. After conducting his own investigations, the applicant discovered, on 3 December 2013, that the respondent had been living with another man. Having suffered emotionally from the entire experience, the applicant requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

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.

The applicant submitted that he and the respondent were married on 25 March 1976 and had five children. As the respondent had suffered a stroke in 2008, the applicant submitted that he intended to marry another woman. Moreover, that his IDR 3 million per month salary was sufficient to meet the needs of both his current and prospective wives, as well as his children.

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds that the applicant was financially capable of providing for his wife and children, pursuant to art 58(1)(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Furthermore, as provided by art 8(a)-(f) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as arts 39-44 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, there were no grounds to prohibit their marriage between the applicant and his prospective second wife.

The Full Bench of three judges, Shabir Ahmad, B. Z. Kaikaus and Masud Ahmad, held that a Muslim wife is entitled to dissolution of marriage on restoration of dower if the Judge apprehends that parties will not observe the limits of God i.e., harmonious married state as envisaged by Islam will not be possible. For this, a husband’s assent is not necessary.

The parties were married on 30 April 2009 and had two children (born 27 March 2001 and 9 August 2005). The plaintiff submitted that the defendant:

1. had married another woman without her permission;
2. had begun living with this other woman; and
3. had verbally abused the plaintiff.

In 2014, the parties separated. On 25 November 2014, the plaintiff filed for divorce on the grounds that the purpose of marriage, as stipulated in art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, could no longer be realised.

The court found that the parties' marriage no longer met the purpose of marriage as envisaged in art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws 1991, and art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974. Moreover, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, and ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 316,00).

The parties were married on 28 November 2010 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had deteriorated because the defendant, on 5 February 2011, had left the matrimonial home never to return. The defendant provided the plaintiff with no information as to his whereabouts. The defendant left no money for the plaintiff and, by September 2013, the plaintiff was forced to move to another city to look for work. The plaintiff sought a judicial divorce, pursuant to art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

Despite the defendant being absent from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff’s application. The court acknowledged witness evidence, provided pursuant to art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975. The court found that the parties' marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Therefore, pursuant 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, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 516,000).

The parties were married on 28 June 2006 by the local imam, the plaintiff's father acting as the parties' marriage guardian (wali nikah). The parties had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since July 2006, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had become excessively jealous of her relationship with her family, was often angry with the plaintiff for no apparent reason, and no longer carried out his responsibilities as a husband. Consequently, the parties had been separated for approximately seven years. The plaintiff maintained that her differences with the defendant were irreconcilable and, accordingly, a divorce was the only viable solution.

In the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra). Acknowledging that marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, that being a happy family and domestic life, was no longer feasible, it granted the divorce on the grounds that the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years, and ongoing conflict, pursuant to 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 parties were married on 26 November 2006. By 2008, however, they had begun to quarrel regularly. The applicant submitted that this was the result of:

1. the respondent's incredibly selfish nature;
2. the respondent not executing her responsibilities as a wife; and
3. the respondent always being emotional for no apparent reason.

Problems escalated on 5 June 2010, resulting in a disagreement between the parties that led them to separating. In his claim, the applicant submitted that the state of the parties' marriage meant that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer feasible. The court noted that, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict existed to grant the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu ba'in raj'i).

The parties were married on 15 January 2005 and had two children. Since August 2011, however, they had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of:

1. the defendant having had an extra-marital affair, which she had discovered based on the contents of certain text messages in the defendant's mobile phone;
2. the defendant having failed to provide the plaintiff with routine financial support; and
3. a debate involving the defendant's family regarding a debt the defendant's older sibling owed to the plaintiff.

Problems escalated on 26 August 2011, resulting in the plaintiff leaving the matrimonial home. In her claim, the plaintiff submitted that the state of the parties' marriage meant that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer feasible. The court noted that, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, it was required to mediate the parties (despite the defendant's absence), and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce in the event mediation was unsuccessful. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, 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 shughra).

The parties were married on 4 January 1996. They had lived with the plaintiff’s parents for 19 years and had two children (aged 18 and 13). Initially, their marriage was harmonious. By July 2013, however, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant:

1. had had extra-marital affairs, rarely came home, and did not provide her or their family with financial support; and
2. often gambled.

Problems escalated in January 2015 resulting in the parties sleeping in separate beds for two months. The parties continued to communicate, but the defendant did not provide the plaintiff with any financial support. The parties’ attempts to reconcile were also unsuccessful.

The plaintiff sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. In the defendant's absence, the court found that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Surat ar Rum 21 of the Qur'an, and art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, being a joyful and enduring household, was no longer feasible. Therefore, the court, pursuant to art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with 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 plaintiff was ordered to pay court costs (IDR 316,000).

The parties were married on 19 April 2013. They had lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ house and had one child (aged 7 months). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By November 2013, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant:

1. had not provided adequate financial support; and
2. was over-protective.

Problems escalated in August 2014 culminating in the defendant leaving the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the aforementioned circumstances had caused the marriage to deteriorate irreparably, and requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bai’in shughra).

The court found that the marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged at law, and that the plaintiff’s claim satisfied the requirements of art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with 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 a divorce and ordered her to pay court costs (IDR 396,000).

The parties were married on 15 July 1999 and had their first and only child on 30 August 2000. At the beginning of February 2000, however, before the birth of the child, the defendant sought the plaintiff's approval to go to his parents' home. He would never return to the matrimonial home and the parties would remain separated for the next 14 years and two months. During that extended time the defendant never provided the plaintiff with any financial support, nor did the plaintiff leave behind anything of value that could be sold to provide for the plaintiff and their child. Moreover, the plaintiff's attempts to locate the defendant were unsuccessful. She sought to pay a fee in order that she could divorce (talak satu khul'i) the defendant for breach of their marriage vows (taklik talak) as she found the situation no longer tenable.

The court acknowledged that the defendant's absence had rendered mediation futile. It also noted that the defendant's conduct specifically repudiated their marriage as he had failed to provide the plaintiff with financial support and failed to care for the plaintiff for more than six months (conduct envisaged by figures 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage contract). Accordingly, by virtue of art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the plaintiff was permitted to divorce the plaintiff for breach of their marriage vows by paying a fee ('iwadh) of IDR 10,000.

The parties were married on 25 August 2012. By the end of September 2012, however, the marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was a result of the defendant having had an extra-marital affair with another woman in November 2012, and the defendant subsequently leaving the plaintiff without any apparent reason or without providing her with any financial support. The plaintiff submitted that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer attainable.

The court found that the information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions. It noted that it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce in the event mediation was unsuccessful. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, therefore, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the parties an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughro).

The parties were married on 11 February 2007 and had their one and only child on 15 July 2008. By October 2011, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of:

1. the defendant having had an extra-marital affair;
2. the defendant's excessive jealousy and accusations towards the plaintiff that she had had an extra-marital affair herself;
3. the defendant's use of profane language which he would direct at the plaintiff; and
4. the defendant not providing enough financial support to meet daily domestic needs.

Problems escalated in mid-2012, causing the parties to separate. In her claim, the plaintiff submitted that the state of the parties' marriage meant that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer feasible. The court found that the information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions. It noted that it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce in the event mediation was unsuccessful. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, therefore, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the parties an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughro).

The parties were married on 20 February 2001 and had three children. Since the beginning of 2001, however, they had quarrelled regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of the defendant:

1. not being financially transparent;
2. often directing obscenities at the plaintiff, including threatening her, insulting her, and physically assaulting her; and
3. having already married another woman without the plaintiff's permission.

In her claim, the plaintiff submitted that the state of the parties' marriage meant that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer feasible. The court found that the information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions. It noted that it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce in the event mediation was unsuccessful. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, therefore, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the parties an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughro).

The parties were married on 22 July 2006 and had one child. The applicant submitted that, since 2010, he and the respondent had begun to quarrel regularly because, among other things, the applicant:

1. did not listen to the applicant's suggestions and advice; and
2. prioritised her career and occupation over executing her responsibilities as a wife.

Problems escalated in 2012, resulting in the applicant leaving the parties' matrimonial home. The applicant believed that the marriage was irreparable, making divorce the only feasible option.

Despite the respondent failing to attend court, the court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in surat Ar-Rum verse 21, and art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, 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 applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 21 January 2013 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2013, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly because the defendant:

1. often directed profanities at the plaintiff;
2. rarely provided the plaintiff with financial support; and
3. often physically assaulted the plaintiff.

Problems escalated in 2013, resulting in the plaintiff leaving the parties' matrimonial home. The plaintiff believed that the marriage was irreparable, making divorce the only feasible option.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in surat Ar-Rum verse 21, and art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, 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 applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 8 December 2014 and had one child, who passed away at three months. As early as January 2015, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant would frequently compare the plaintiff with his first wife. On 12 July 2015, it became apparent to the plaintiff that the defendant was not accepting of her children from her first marriage, prioritising his own child (from his first marriage), even becoming physically violent towards her children. On 20 October 2015, when the defendant's child verbally insulted the plaintiff in front of the defendant, the defendant sided with his own child, leading to yet another disagreement between the parties. This led to the plaintiff leaving the matrimonial home for a rental property in Karya Budi, Suka Karya. While the plaintiff lived in this rental property, the defendant never came to visit her, nor did he seek to reconcile their differences, or provide the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support.

Unable to cope any longer with the defendant's behaviour, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra). In the defendant's absence, 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 12 July 2010 by the plaintiff's brother, who had also acted as the plaintiff's marriage guardian (wali nikah) as the plaintiff's father had already passed away. The plaintiff submitted that after only three months the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had misled the plaintiff by claiming that he had already divorced his first wife before marrying the plaintiff, which he had not. The plaintiff submitted that she and her family were deeply ashamed by the defendant's actions, particularly by the defendant's failure to produce documentary evidence that he and his first wife had indeed divorced, which had precluded them from registering their marriage with the office of religious affairs. Moreover, while the parties had been separated since 1 March 2011, the defendant had already returned to his first wife. The plaintiff, therefore, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, 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.