SHARIAsource

The applicant (30 years) had been with her fiance (27 years) for five months, and both their parents were aware of their relationship. The applicant's fiance's initial marriage proposal to the applicant, however, had been forbidden by the applicant's father (and marriage guardian) because the applicant's fiance was from the neighbouring village, which the local Javanese culture deemed incompatible.

Despite the applicant's pleas to her father to allow her to marry her fiance, the applicant's father had remained steadfast in his convictions. Seeing no legal justification in her father's refusal, the applicant sought a stipulation from the court permitting her to marry her fiance on the following grounds:

1. that the applicant was prepared and ready to become a wife, as was her fiance to become a husband, as well as already being gainfully employed;
2. that nothing under Islamic law or any current legislative instrument precluded the applicant and her fiance from marrying; and
3. that the applicant was concerned that if she and her fiance were not permitted to marry, they would contravene Islamic legal provisions (read: become physically intimate).

The court acceded to the applicant's wishes, agreeing with the applicant that none of the reasons the applicant's father proffered in forbidding the marriage accorded with any of the reasons contained in arts 8-10 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with arts 39-44 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 27 April 2008. After marrying, the parties lived happily with the applicant's parents, and had one child. The parties remained happily married until 2009, after which they began to quarrel regularly. The applicant submitted that this was because:

1. the respondent, after giving birth, would become frightened and traumatised if in the presence of the applicant (this remained the case for five years);
2. when the respondent recovered from this condition, if asked about it, she would say she would become scared if she could not please the applicant;
3. in 2010, the applicant relocated to Korea for work but maintained communication with the respondent, but when he returned to Indonesia in 2013, the respondent fell ill again.

As a result, the parties had been separated for the past five years, during which time they had not shared any physical intimacy. The applicant submitted that the marriage was beyond repair and, accordingly, requested that the court grant him a divorce.

The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surah 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 of having been apart for longer than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 24 May 2009. They lived together happily with the applicant's parents for five years and four months, but had no children. Since October 2010, however, the parties had begun to quarrel because, due to a cervical tumor, the respondent was unable to fall pregnant. The applicant submitted that this caused him to suffer greatly, and to feel that the parties could no longer remain married. Moreover, the parties had been separated since September 2014, during which time, they had shared no physical intimacy.

The applicant submitted that the parties' differences were irreconcilable and, accordingly, requested a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surah 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(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.

The parties were married on 4 March 2001 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that while the marriage had been harmonious initially, by December 2003 it had become quarrelsome because:

1. the defendant had failed to provide for his family; and
2. the parties frequently had differing opinions.

Problems escalated and, by July 2014, the parties were sleeping separate beds. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

On the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 22 July 2007 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that while the marriage had been harmonious initially, by January 2013 it had become quarrelsome because of:

1. the parties' differing opinions regarding domestic affairs; and
2. inadequate finances.

Problems escalated in October 2014 resulting in the parties separating, the plaintiff leaving the matrimonial home. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

On the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 5 December 2010 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since January 2012, the parties marriage had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide for the plaintiff financially;
2. seldom came home, for no apparent reason; and
3. prioritised his parents over the plaintiff.

Problems escalated and, by June 2014, the parties had separated. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 2 December 2013 but had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, since March 2014, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide for his family; and
2. often came home in the middle of the night for no apparent reason.

Problems escalated and, by April 2014, the parties had separated. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 8 June 2010 and had one child. The applicant submitted that, by March 2012, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent:

1. would ignore and oppose the applicant's advice;
2. was frequently unnecessarily jealous;
3. failed to appreciate what the applicant would provide her with; and
4. frequently requested that the applicant divorce her.

Problems escalated and, by October 2014, the parties were sleeping in separate beds. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the applicant requested that the Court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raji).

Despite the respondent's absence from court, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the Court acceded to the applicant's request, 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 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 1 September 2006 before a local marriage registrar from the Office of Religious Affairs. Since October 2012, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide the plaintiff and their children with any financial support; and
2. would frequently declare that he divorced the plaintiff (pronounced talak).

Between October 2012 and the time the plaintiff filed an application for divorce, the plaintiff and the parties' two children had been living with the plaintiff's parents. During this time the defendant never visited or provided them with any financial support, forcing the plaintiff and their children to rely financially on the plaintiff's parents. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sugro), believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair.

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 an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) on the grounds of having been apart for longer than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 18 December 1998 before an official marriage registrar from the local Office of Religious Affairs. Over a six-year period, the parties lived with the applicant's parents, and then with the respondent's grandmother. The parties also had one child.

In December 2004, the applicant went to Japan to work. Then, one day in 2006, the respondent left the parties' residence in Blitar without informing the applicant. For the next seven years and 11 months, up until the date of the proceeding, the applicant remained unaware of the respondent's whereabouts. As the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years, the applicant requested that the the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

In the respondent's absence, the court acceded to the applicant's request, pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 26 July 2008 before a marriage registrar from the local Office of Religious Affairs. They then lived with the respondent's parents before moving to a rental property. The parties also had one child.

The applicant submitted, however, that the parties' marriage became quarrelsome from 25 November 2012, after the applicant discovered that the respondent had been having an extra-marital affair with another man. Since that date the parties had remained separated, had shared no physical intimacy, and their child had remained in the applicant's care. The applicant submitted that he did not want the child to be transferred into the care of the respondent given her recent conduct.

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(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court, in the respondent's absence, acceded to the plaintiff's application for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 9 October 1993 and had three children. Initially, their marriage had been harmonious, however, since July 2011, the respondent had become angry and frustrated with the applicant because the applicant had failed to provide her with sufficient financial support. As a scavenger (pemulung), the applicant would bring home, at most, IDR 50,000 per day. The respondent had returned to her parents' home in Jember and the applicant to Bali. The parties had not communicated since October 2012.

Pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years, without any communication.

The cassation applicant appealed on the grounds that the two previous courts had granted the cassation respondent a divorce because the cassation applicant was unable to conceive a child during their six years together. The cassation applicant argued this was due to no fault of her own, but rather that Allah SWT had not blessed them with a child. In addition, that the cassation respondent and cassation applicant had never quarrelled, but rather the cassation respondent had simply left the cassation applicant for no apparent reason. The cassation applicant also claimed that the cassation respondent was required by legislation (Law No. 10 of 1983) to submit a written request from his superior at work to formalise the divorce.

Purusant to art 30 of Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, as amended by Law No. 5 of 2004 and Law No. 3 of 2009, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the two previous courts had applied the law correctly. The court did, however, make adjustments to maintenance costs payable by the cassation respondent.

The respondent had worked in Taiwan from 2007-2013, returning every three years at the completion of a work contract. The parties had quarrelled over how the appellant used money the respondent would send to the appellant from Taiwan, and, since 2013, the parties had not lived together or communicated whatsoever.

The court upheld the decision of the lower court to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra), finding on the facts that the parties' marriage was indeed irreparable for the purposes of art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, it directed the appellant to pay costs.

The parties were married on 13 May 2005 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious initially, but, since September 2010, it had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant had failed to provide for his family.

In July 2013, the defendant left the matrimonial home never to return. parties were sleeping in separate beds, and by March 2014, the defendant had left the matrimonial home. Despite the plaintiff's efforts, she was unable to locate the defendant up until the time of the proceeding. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, 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 parties were married on 11 February 2004 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had been harmonious initially; however, since August 2012, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide for his family;
2. was abbrasive with the plaintiff; and
3. frequently engaged in extra-marital sexual relations.

Problems escalated and, by January 2014, the parties were sleeping in separate beds, and by March 2014, the defendant had left the matrimonial home. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, 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, acceded to the plaintiff's request.

The parties were married on 9 February 2005 but had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, by October 2009, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide for his family;
2. would physically beat the plaintiff.

Problems escalated and, by September 2013, the parties had separated after the defendant left the matrimonial home. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

On the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, 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, acceded to the plaintiff's request.

The parties were married on 8 July 2007 but had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, by January 2008, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the defendant had failed to provide for his family;
2. the defendant's family would meddle in their domestic affairs;
3. the defendant frequently threatened the plaintiff; and
4. the defendant directed profane language at the plaintiff.

Problems escalated and, by July 2014, the parties had separated after the defendant left the matrimonial home. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The defendant conceded that he had used profane language with the plaintiff, but only because she had accused him of having had an extra-marital affair. Moreover, that the parties had quarrelled because the plaintiff controlled the parties' finances, to the defendant's dismay.

On the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, 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, acceded to the plaintiff's request.

The parties were married on 23 January 2001 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious initially, but, since August 2013, it had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide for his family;
2. had had an extra-marital affair; and
3. drank excessively.

Problems escalated and, by December 2013, the parties had separated after the defendant left the matrimonial home. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, 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.