SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 26 May 2013 and had one child. The plaintiff's older brother had acted as the marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry (mahar) had been the cash value of 3.35 grams of gold. Since 25 July 2014, however, the marriage had been disharmonious. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant left in search of employment, never to return, and without leaving a forwarding address. 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(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court therefore acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two years, and ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 2 March 2015. At the time of their marriage the plaintiff was a widow and the defendant a widower. Their marriage had been harmonious for one year and three months, but by July 2016 it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant could not accept the plaintiff's three children from her first marriage.

In August 2016 problems escalated, resulting in the plaintiff returning to her parents' home. The parties had remained separated for one month and two weeks approaching the proceeding. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been unsuccessful and the plaintiff, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughro).

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to 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 court also cited Ar-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, regarding the supposed tranquility of marriage.

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the Republic of Singapore, based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under Singapore's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has some legal status.  

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 30 August 2006. For the first six months of their marriage they lived in Balikpapan, before relocating to Blitar for one year and nine months. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. After moving to Blitar to live with the defendant's parents, however, the marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant would frequently leave the home in the afternoon and return in the middle of the night intoxicated. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant would physically assault her on a regular basis. In 2007, the defendant verbally divorced the plaintiff three times, one in Balikpapan, and twice in Blitar. For the duration of the marriage, the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any money, the parties having to rely on the plaintiff's father for financial support. The plaintiff submitted that, unable to cope with the defendant's treatment of her, she had decided to return to her parents' home in Balikpapan. She requested that the court grant her a divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i).

Pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, noting that the plaintiff had established that the defendant had neglected his spousal obligations, and breached his marriage vows (taklik talak). The court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

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 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 19 June 2013. The plaintiff submitted that, prior to their marriage, the parties knew little about each other and that the marriage was arranged by their parents. The parties never consummated their marriage and, on 25 June 2014, the defendant left the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra).

The court found that the parties' marriage could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage, as stipulated in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, 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, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in shugra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, and ordered her to pay court costs (IDR 391,000).

The parties were married on 12 May 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2014, the marriage had become disharmonious because:

1. the parties quarrelled regularly, their differences seemingly irreconcilable;
2. the defendant was dishonest with the plaintiff;
3. the defendant often gambled; and
4. the defendant did care for the plaintiff's children from her first marriage.

Problems escalated and, in February 2015, the plaintiff left the matrimonial home after yet another dispute. The plaintiff believed 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 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 21 May 2015. They had lived with the plaintiff's parents for the duration of their marriage. Despite having already consummated the marriage the parties had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, since June 2015, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. This was a result of the defendant:

1. not wanting to work to meet their financial needs, forcing the plaintiff to work; and
2. tricking the plaintiff into providing him with money to purchase a car in order to start up his own car rental business, only to then leave the plaintiff after she had provided him with money.

The parties had remained separated for the past seven months leading up to the proceeding.

Acknowledging that the parties' marriage was irreparable, for the purposes of art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the Court acceded to the plaintiff's request. Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

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 23 December 1997 and had three children (aged 15, 14 and 8). The marriage deteriorated and, in January 2015, the parties separated. On 22 January 2015, the applicant filed for a divorce. The applicant submitted that during the marriage:

1. the respondent admitted to having had an extra-marital affair with another man; and
2. the respondent had showed insufficient care for the applicant and their children.

The applicant submitted to the court that the marriage was irreconcilable and requested permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj’i).

The parties attended court-sanctioned mediation, which made them reconcile their differences. The applicant withdrew his application on 10 February 2015. The court acceded to the withdrawal and ordered the applicant to pay court costs (IDR 391,000).

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.

The parties were married on 11 September 2015 but never had a wedding reception because, following their marriage, they both returned to their respective parents' homes. The applicant submitted that after he and the respondent's parents exchanged vows (ijab kabul) the respondent's parents left suddenly for no apparent reason. Moreover, that the respondent had taken her belongings back to her parents' home before the parties' marriage ceremony. The applicant believed, therefore, that the parties' marriage was untenable and requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

Despite the respondent's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. It also acknowledged that revocable divorce is regulated in art 118 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

This case was brought by the parents of Maria Huberdina Hertogh for the following reliefs: that Hertogh's marriage to Inche Mansoor Adabi be declared void and of no effect; that Inche Mansoor Adabi be ordered to deliver Hertogh to the custody of the Consul-General for the Netherlands; that the Consul-General for the Netherlands be free to restore Hertogh to her parents; and that Inche Mansoor Adabi and Amina Binte Mohamed be prohibited from removing Hertogh from the jurisdiction of the court pending the hearing of the application. The Court ruled that it did have jurisdiction to declare the marriage void, that the marriage was invalid, and that Hertogh should be returned to the custody of her mother.

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 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.