SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 20 February 2013, had one child, and lived with the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff submitted that, since March 2015, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had never provided her with any financial support since they were married. Furthermore, the defendant showed insufficient care for his family and often went out on his own. Problems escalated and, on 21 March 2015, the defendant left the plaintiff's parents' home. Since their separation the parties had not been physically intimate with one another. 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 February 2013, had one child, and lived with the plaintiff's parents. The parties were married on 21 June 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, for the past year and a half, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant never provided her with any financial support, compelling the plaintiff to rely on her parents financially. The defendant then left the plaintiff and, since their separation a year ago, the parties had not been physically intimate with one another. Moreover, the plaintiff did not know of the defendant's whereabouts. 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 parties were married on 20 February 2013, had one child, and lived with the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff submitted that, since March 2015, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had never provided her with any financial support since they were married. Furthermore, the defendant showed insufficient care for his family and often went out on his own. Problems escalated and, on 21 March 2015, the defendant left the plaintiff's parents' home. Since their separation the parties had not been physically intimate with one another. 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 February 2013, had one child, and lived with the plaintiff's parents. The parties were married on 21 June 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, for the past year and a half, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had not provided her with any financial support, compelling the plaintiff to rely on her parents financially. The defendant then left the plaintiff and, since their separation a year ago, the parties had not been physically intimate with one another. Moreover, the plaintiff did not know of the defendant's whereabouts. 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 9 December 2004 and had lived with the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2008, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant's unwillingness to gain employment meant they could not meet their domestic needs. The defendant then left the plaintiff to live with his own parents, and for the seven years they were separated, they were never physically intimate with one another. 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 31 October 2012 and had lived with the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had always been quarrelsome because the defendant had never been willing to seek employment, meaning the parties could not meet their domestic needs. Two months prior to the proceeding, the defendant left the plaintiff without notice or a farewell to live with his own parents, and for the two months they were separated they had not shared any physical intimacy. 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 12 May 2006 and had one child. The marriage had been harmonious until May 2015, when, the plaintiff submitted, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly because of the defendant's jealousy when a male guest came to the parties' home. Problems escalated and the defendant left the matrimonial home on 28 June 2015. The parties had remained separated for the 15 days leading up to the date on which the plaintiff had filed an application for divorce, during which time they had not been physically intimate with one another. 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 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 7 August 2001 but had no children. Initially, their marriage had been harmonious. Since 2003, however, the plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial support;
2. frequently used profane language with the plaintiff, even when discussing insignificant matters; and
3. was frequently suspicious of the plaintiff, directing unwarranted accusations at the plaintiff claiming that she had had an extra-marital affair.

On 11 July 2012, problems escalated when the defendant accused the plaintiff of having an extra-marital affair simply because she had received a text message and telephone call from one of the defendant's relatives. Two days later, finding his poor attitude intolerable, the plaintiff left the defendant. The parties had remained separated for the three months leading up to the proceeding. As a result of the suffering the defendant's conduct had caused the plaintiff, the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option available was divorce.

Based on the information before it, including witness statements, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, 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.

The parties were married on 2 September 2002, had no children, and lived with the plaintiff's parents. Initially, their marriage had been harmonious. Since 2006, however, the plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had not provided the plaintiff with sufficient financial support; and
2. frequently used profane language with, and physically assaulted, the plaintiff, even when discussing insignificant matters.

On 27 October 2012, problems escalated when the plaintiff asked the defendant to move his motorcyle from inside the house to out on the terrace. When the defendant refused to do so, the plaintiff became angry and silenced the defendant. At 4.30pm, the defendant suddenly hit the plaintiff because she had not communicated with him all day and, consequently, the plaintiff told the defendant to leave her parents' home. The defendant never returned. As a result, the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option remaining was divorce.

Based on the information before it, including witness statements, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, 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.

The parties were married on 10 November 1999 and lived with the defendant's parents. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious, but, since the birth of their first child, the plaintiff submitted that it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. frequently directed profane language at the plaintiff;
2. neglected the plaintiff, often leaving her at home alone for no apparent reason; and
3. often had unwarranted suspicions that the plaintiff was having an extra-marital affair.

In October 2011, problems escalated when the plaintiff looked after the defendant's aunt, who was then in Bulukumba Hospital. When the plaintiff returned home, the defendant became angry with the plaintiff, telling her to 'sell herself' ('jual saja dirimu'), causing the parties to argue, and then the defendant to leave the plaintiff. The parties had remained separated since. The parties' families' attempts to make the parties reconcile were in vain, and, as a result, the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option available was divorce.

Based on the information before it, including witness statements, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, 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.

The first year of their marriage was harmonious, however, from thereon the parties had begun to quarrel regularly because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. frequently directed profane language towards, and hit, the applicant, even over minor matters; and
2. would become angry if the applicant gave money to his daughter (from a previous marriage).

Problems between the parties escalated and, on 15 May 2012, when the respondent became angry that the applicant was helping his son-in-law renovate his house, the applicant physically assaulted the respondent, and then left her. The parties had remained separated since (for approximately five months). The applicant's family's attempts to make the parties reconcile proved to be in vain. Believing there was no hope for the parties to reunite, the applicant requested that the Court grant him a divorce.

The respondent denied having directed profane language at the applicant, having physically assaulted him, or having been angered by the applicant providing his daughter with money. The respondent also disputed the claim that the applicant helping his son-in-law renovate his house had upset her; rather, she submitted, it was the applicant who was angry and had, therefore, hit the respondent.

The respondent submitted her own counterclaim, noting that the applicant had provided her with a 10 x 10m plantation as a dowry (mahar), and that the parties had, as a joint asset, a 25-acre plantation. The respondent sought that the dowry plantation be returned to the applicant, but that she acquire the 25-acre plantation.

The applicant submitted that the respondent had never enjoyed control of the dowry property, and that the respondent should not be granted ownership of the 25-acre plantation. Moreover, that the parties had other joint assets that the respondent had not disclosed to the Court, which were:

1. pledged land (IDR 10 million);
2. a stilted house, (6m²);
3. 40 tiles (30cm²);
4. installation costs for one kilometre of electricity (IDR 3.2 million);
5. Malaysian gold purchased in 2008, in the form of a 20-gram necklace, and two 7-gram rings (IDR 8 million);
6. one water pump (IDR 500,000); and
7. a hajj deposit in both parties' names.

The respondent submitted that, as the applicant's daughter had often come to the dowry plantation to take some of the plantation's yield, without the respondent's permission, the respondent would return the dowry plantation to the applicant in exchange for the 25-acre plantation. The respondent also submitted that installation costs for a kilometre of electricty were not a joint asset because that money was the result of the respondent selling her property for IDR 3.5 million.

The court acceded to the applicant's request for a divorce, granting a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court noted, however, that, based on witness evidence, as well as the parties' submissions, the respondent had not been a disobedient or defiant wife (nusyuz), and that, because it was the applicant who left the matrimonial home, the respondent was entitled to receive financial maintenance payments from the applicant. The court ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 300,000 per month for three months (IDR 900,000) for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted). In addition, the court ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 300,000 in mut'ah (divorce compensation).

The court dismissed the respondent's claim over the 25-acre plantation, but granted her the dowry plantation on the grounds that it had been in her possession since the parties married. The court concurred with the applicant regarding the seven joint assets, ordering the respondent to provide to the applicant 50 per cent of those assets.

The parties were married on 21 May 2008 but had no children. They had lived with the plaintiff's parents for the first three nights of their marriage, before moving to the defendant's parents, where they then lived for two years and nine months. As early as October 2008, however, the plaintiff alleged that she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly because the defendant:

1. was often intoxicated and showed no signs of reforming;
2. was frequently abusive (verbally and physically) towards the plaintiff; and
3. frequently suspected the plaintiff was having an extra-marital affair.

On 6 February 2011, problems escalated when the plaintiff went to her parents' home to work on the rice padi her parents had given her. Before leaving, the plaintiff had requested the defendant's permission, but when the plaintiff returned two days later, the defendant became angry, stating that he had only granted the plaintiff permission to stay at her parents' home for one night, not two. The defendant then ordered the plaintiff to leave their home, and since then, the parties had remained separated (one year and three months). During that time, the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support. The defendant's family's efforts to make the parties reconcile were also to no avail. As a result, the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option remaining was divorce.

Based on the information before it, including witness statements, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, 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 18 June 2006 and had one child. They lived with the respondent's parents for one year, before moving to their own home, where they had lived for approximately five years. The applicant, however, claimed that he and the respondent had begun to quarrel regularly because the respondent:

1. had ordered the applicant to leave the house;
2. often owed other people money, unbeknownst to the applicant; and
3. frequently directed profane language at the applicant.

When problems escalated, the parties separated. The applicant's family's efforts to make the parties reconcile were also to no avail. As a result, the applicant believed that the only feasible option remaining was divorce.

The court stated that, because the case centred around a domestic dispute, art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 76(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989, compelled it to hear information from witnesses who were family or persons close to the parties, in order to ascertain the extent of the quarrelling between the parties. Based on the information provided by the two witnesses produced by the applicant, the court was convinced that the applicant's claim was grounded in fact. Moreover, the purpose of marriage, being to create a joyful and enduring family and domestic life, per art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, the court acceded to the applicant's request and granted him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The parties were married on 19 February 1992, after which time they lived with both the applicant's parents and respondent's parents, before settling with the applicant's parents as the applicant was an only child. After the birth of their two children, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly, primarily because the applicant had wanted a third child, whereas the respondent did not. Problems escalated in May 2012 when the respondent threatened to harm the applicant if he did not leave the house. The respondent had also reported the applicant and the applicant's father to the police for physical assault, but a subsequent police investigation had revealed that her allegations were unfounded. The applicant, therefore, believed that, due to ongoing conflict between the parties, divorce, pursuant to s 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and s 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, was the only feasible option.

The respondent counterclaimed for custody of the parties' children, as well as for financial support and compensation from the applicant.

The court acceded to the applicant's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), and while it did not accede to the amount of financial compensation sought by the respondent, it did order the applicant to pay to the respondent:

1. IDR 10 million in mut'ah (divorce compensation);
2. IDR 3 million for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted); and
3. IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance.

The parties were married on 25 September 2011 and had one child, who was in the plaintiff's care. Initially, their marriage was harmonious, but after the birth of their child, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted this was because the defendant:

1. had not provided her with any financial support, rather, giving his entire income to his parents; and
2. was frequently emotionally and physically abusive towards the plaintiff, even over minor matters.

Problems escalated and, in April 2013, when the parties' child passed away, the defendant left the plaintiff for Kalimantan and cut all ties with her. As the defendant's whereabouts were unknown, nothing could be done by the parties' families to orchestrate a reunion. Accordingly, the plaintiff believed that divorce was the only feasible option available.

Based on the evidence before it, including that provided by witnesses, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the Court acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. In further support of its decision it cited surat ar-rum verse 21, Kitab al-Qawaid al-Fiqhiyyah li al-Syaikh Muhammad Halim al-Utsaimin, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, emphasising that the purpose of marriage had long ago been repudiated by the parties.

The Bantul Religious Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), as well as custody of the parties' child until she reached 12 years of age (mumayyiz), three-quarters of the parties' joint assets, and ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent IDR 2.75 million per month in child maintenance until the child reached 21 years of age. The appellant sought to challenge that decision on the grounds that:

1. the lower court had concluded the parties frequently quarrelled, despite any evidence thereof;
2. there was confusion as to the status of the second witness produced by the respondent, who was declared to be the respondent's former neighbour;
3. division of the parties' joint assets was incorrectly stipulated;
4. the figure of IDR 2.75 million was unfounded; and
5. witnesses produced by the respondent did not support the respondent's claims.

The court dismissed these objections, except for the appellant's claim that IDR 2.75 million per month in child maintenance was excessive. Taking into consideration the appellant's monthly wage (IDR 1.5 million), it reduced that figure to IDR 750,000.

The court did, however, decide to issue its own judgment as it objected to the respondent's unilateral request to make a bequest to the parties' child of their joint assets, without the appellant's consent.

The parties were married on 19 May 2003, after which they lived with the plaintiff's parents in Banda Aceh for two years, until the end of 2005. In 2006 they moved, and had lived in Banda Aceh until 2015, during which time they had had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had lived harmoniously until 2008, after which time they had begun to quarrel regularly, because the defendant:

1. frequently left the matrimonial home, only to return the next morning, if at all, without showing any regard for the plaintiff and their children, and if the defendant did return home, he would often be angry with the plaintiff for no apparent reason;
2. frequently physically assaulted the plaintiff, and would even, oven minor matters, resort to physical violence, hitting and kicking the plaintiff;
3. showed no care for the plaintiff and their children whatsoever, rather, prioritising himself over domestic needs such as costs associated with the parties' children.

The plaintiff informed the court that she had previously filed an application for a judicial divorce with the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court on 3 October 2011, however, had withdrawn that application after reconciling with the defendant. Moreover, that between the parties they had reached a reconciliation agreement (perjanjian damai) on 11 July 2002 before Chief Justice Drs. H. Idris Budiman. As the defendant had failed to maintain his end of the bargain, the plaintiff submitted that she had legal grounds to file an application for judicial divorce. The plaintiff also sought IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance.

In 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 rahmah) homelife was no longer feasible. Moreover, that ongoing conflict between the parties was sufficient reason to grant a divorce, 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.

In regards to their children, the court found that while they remained the joint responsibility of the parties, the plaintiff would be better placed to rear and educate them given their still being pre-pubescent (belum mumayyiz). This also accorded with the requirement contained in art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court emphasised its belief that a mother would be more patient and meticulous in raising the children, and that to separate them from the plaintiff would be incredibly problematic given their age. The court also cited art 59(2) of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights, which acknowledges the rights and needs of children to maintain a personal relationship with their father. Accordingly, it granted the defendant visitation rights, as well as the right to be consulted regarding his children's education and development, as contained in art 26(1) of Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection. The court did not accede to the plaintiff's request for IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance, but instead ordered the defendant to pay to the plaintiff IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance.

The parties were married on 22 October 2000 at the Office of Religious Affairs (Kantor Urusan Agama) in West Bekasi, and had one child. After marrying, they lived in a rental property in Solo for approximately six years, before moving to Banda Aceh. The plaintiff alleged that, since 2010, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly because the defendant had failed to provide sufficiently for his family. Family members had sought to reconcile the parties, but to no avail. On 30 September 2010, the defendant orally divorced the plaintiff (declared talak), and in January 2011, the defendant left the plaintiff and their child (then-aged 2) never to return. Since then the defendant had failed to provide the defendant with any financial or emotional support, and had only provided the defendant with a modest amount of money after their child had started school. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought a judicial divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to art 70(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989, in conjunction with art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds of irreconcilable differences and ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 30 October 2007 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had deteriorated because the defendant often went out during the night very late without informing the plaintiff of his whereabouts. If the plaintiff inquired as to where the defendant had been, the defendant would become verbally abusive. Problems escalated when, in July 2010, the defendant reacted to advice from the plaintiff by threatening to physically assault her. The plaintiff was then picked up by a friend and taken to her parents' home where she had remained leading up to the proceeding. For the next year the defendant had provided the plaintiff with no financial support, and the parties had shown no regard for each another. Accordingly, the plaintiff believed divorce was the only feasible option remaining.

Despite the defendant being absent from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application. The court acknowledged witness evidence, pursuant to art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975. The court found that the parties' marriage was no longer 'joyful and enduring', as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. Therefore, the court, 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 sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 231,000).

The parties were married on 14 April 2009 and had no children. The applicant submitted that the marriage had deteriorated because the respondent frequently complained that the applicant's income was insufficient. On 26 September 2010, the parties separated and each went to live with their respective parents. The parties were unable to reconcile and the applicant requested the court's permission to divorce the respondent.

The court found that the parties could not reconcile their differences, pursuant to art 39(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 31(1) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 82(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989, and art 115 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and in the Qur'an, Surat Ar-Ruum, verse 21.

Therefore, pursuant to art 39(2)(f) 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 applicant permission to divorce the respondent on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the applicant to pay costs (IDR 391,000).