SHARIAsource

The plaintiff submitted that the defendant left the matrimonial home [date not specified in judgment] and the parties' four children, and had not returned in nine years and one month, during which time he had not sent any news of his whereabouts and neglected his obligation to provide for his family. The plaintiff maintained that she had tried to locate the defendant, even asking his family in Jakarta, but no one she asked knew of his whereabouts.

The court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (thalak satu bain shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, and that the parties had been separated for more than two years, per art 19(f) and (b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) and (b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Kutacane Shari'a Court to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra). The Court found that legislation requires a proceeding to be conducted in camera if it is dealing with both a marriage ratification and an irrevocable divorce, which, in this case, it was. As it was conducted in an open forum, however, the Court held the decision of the lower court must be overturned.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Kualasimpang Shari'a Court to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

In upholding the decision of the lower court, the Court acknowledged that the parties had already quarrelled for some time because of the appellant having had an extra-marital affair. The Court found that these were sufficient reasons to fulfil the requirements of art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage to grant a divorce.

The appellant sought to challenge the ruling of the Langsa Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra). The Court dismissed the appeal insofar as it agreed with the decision of the lower court to grant an irrevocable divorce. It did, however, amend the decision to ensure that the court registrar send copies of the decision to the marriage registry.

The appellant sought to challenge the ruling of the Kualasimpang Shari'a Court which:

1. granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra); and
2. granted the respondent custody of the parties' two children.

The Court dismissed the appeal, stating the ruling of the lower court was correct.

The appellant sought to challenge the ruling of the Kutacane Shari'a Court, which, among other things:

1. declared the marriage of the parties to be lawful;
2. granted the respondent a divorce; and
3. evenly distributed the parties' assets.

The Court dismissed the appeal insofar as it did not overturn the lower court's decision to grant a divorce, but it was more specific in stipulating the assets of the parties and their distribution therein.

The appellant challenged the ruling of the Meulaboh Shari'a Court, which, among other things, deemed the marriage of the parties to be lawful, and granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shugra).

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court insofar as it granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce, however, it noted that the lower court was not required to first determine the lawfulness of the marriage.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Lhokseumawe Shari'a Court, which, among other things, had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), but also directed the respondent to pay the appellant IDR 2.5 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce is granted) and IDR 10 million for mut'ah (divorce compensation) and kiswah (clothing) in maintenance. In regards to the revocable divorce, the Court upheld the decision of the lower court. Taking the respondent's regular salary into consideration, however, it increased the amount of maintenance payable by the respondent to IDR 5 million (iddah) and IDR 15 million (mut'ah and kiswah).

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Jantho Shari'a Court, which, among other things, granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra).

The Court found no flaw in the judgment of the lower court and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Meulaboh Shari'a Court, which, among other things, granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra) and specified child maintenance payments to be made by the appellant.

The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court to grant the the respondent an irrevocable divorce, concurring with the lower court that the ongoing conflict between the parties constituted a sufficient reason for divorce, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1075, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. In regards to child maintenance payments, however, the Court overturned the decision of the lower court on the grounds that the respondent had not made any request for such payments in the first instance.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Sigli Shari'a Court, which, among other things, granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent IDR 1,500,000 in maintenance (iddah).

The Court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming the decision of the lower court.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Lhoksukon Shari'a Court, which, among other things, granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The Court dismissed the appeal, concurring with the lower court that the ongoing conflict between the parties constituted a sufficient reason for divorce, pursuant to arts 39(1) and (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 appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Bireuen Shari'a Court, which, among other things, granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The Court found the judgment of the lower court to be sound and correct and, therefore, dismissed the appeal.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Bireuen Shari'a Court, which listed the joint assets and debts of the parties, and stipulated a 50/50 split of those assets between the parties, while noting the parties' joint debt of IDR 15 million with Bank Rakyat Indonesia (being repaid at IDR 716,700 per month) remained a joint debt for the next 36 months.

For all intents and purposes, the Court found the decision of the lower court to be accurate and correct. It issued its own decision, however, reiterating the distribution of joint assets and debts, as well as requiring the respondent to pay IDR 1.5 million in child support per month, until the parties' child was of age.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Bireuen Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The Court dismissed the appeal. Notably, it qualified that while it was very supportive of the appellant's desire to reconcile with the respondent, its role was limited to counselling and mediating the parties, not coercing a person into reconciling with their spouse.

The appellants sought to challenge the decision of the Sigli Shari'a Court, which divided the assets of the two decased between the beneficiaries.

The Court upheld the appeal on the grounds that the original decision contravened art 185(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws insofar as it excessively granted rights to two successors of beneficiaries. The Court stated that the purpose of a successor of a beneficiary is to ensure a beneficiary's children are not neglected when assets are distributed.

The Court stipulated 14 beneficiaries, but ensured the four biological children of the deceased inherited two-thirds of the estate, with the remaining third of the estate being distributed among the relevant grandchildren of the deceased.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Blangkejeren Shari'a Court, which granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). The Court also ordered the respondent to pay the following maintenance to the appellant: IDR 2 million (iddah), IDR 1 million (kiswah), IDR 1.5 million (maskan) and IDR 5.5 million (mut'ah).

The Court noted that the lower court had not determined the issue of child custody, as required under art 41(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The Court ordered the respondent to pay the following increased maintenance to the appellant: IDR 9 million (iddah), IDR 3 million (kiswah), IDR 30 million (mut'ah), IDR 2 million per month in child support until the children reach 21 years of age, and IDR 1.5 million per month to cover the children's school fees.

The appellant was granted a revocable divorce before the Langsa Shari'a Court. In her counterclaim before the lower court, however, the respondent was granted the following: IDR 3 million (iddah); IDR 2 million (mut'ah); custody of the parties' six children; IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance paid by the appellant; and 50 per cent of what the lower court determined to be the parties' joint estate (the appellant being granted the other 50 per cent).

The Court found the judgment of the lower court to be sound, making only slight, inconsequential amendments to the original decision.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), placed the parties' child in the custody of the respondent, and ordered the appellant to pay child maintenance fees of at least IDR 500,000 per month until the child reaches 21 years of age.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no fault with the decision of the lower court.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Sigli Shari'a Court, which listed the joint assets of the parties and granted each party a 50 per cent share.

The Court found that the lower court had erred in listing the parties' joint assets correctly and comprehensively.