SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 21 June 2006 and had two children aged 9 and 4 years, both of whom were in the plaintiff's care. They had lived with the plaintiff's parents for approximately seven years before relocating to the ghetto (kampung). The plaintiff submitted that, since the end of 2007, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. was in debt (the plaintiff learned of this from one of the defendant's debtors);
2. would physically assault the plaintiff when angry; and
3. was excessively jealous and would accuse the plaintiff of having an extra-marital affair with another man.

Problems escalated in August 2015 when the defendant telephoned the plaintiff while she was bathing. When the plaintiff consequently failed to answer the telephone, the defendant became angry, beating her and pulling her hair. As a result, the plaintiff left the parties' home. Familial intervention had also failed to reconcile the parties' differences.

The plaintiff submitted that as the parties' marriage and home life was no longer peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah), and in order that they did not contravene legal and religious norms, an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) was the parties' final option.

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, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, it did so on the grounds of ongoing conflict, 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 7 April 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2013, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly, primarily because:

1. the defendant would often become angry for no apparent reason; and
2. the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support since 2013, up until the date of the proceeding.

Problems escalated, and in November 2013, the defendant left the matrimonial home. The plaintiff submitted that an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) was the only feasible option remaining.

Despite being formally summonsed, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the defendant failed to attend court. Regardless, 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 application on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, being a joyful and enduring relationship, as well as art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible, and that the plaintiff had established sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce, as required under art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 65 of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary.

The parties were married on 22 September 2008 but had no children. For the first three years of their marriage they had lived in their own home, before moving to live with the defendant's parents. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious, however, since August 2013, it had begun to deteriorate. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant:

1. was unhappy that the parties had not yet conceived a child; and
2. had had an extra-marital affair.

Problems escalated and, on 28 August 2013, the plaintiff moved to her parents' home after receiving a letter from the defendant stating that he divorced her. For the next one year and eight months, the plaintiff submitted that she had attempted to reconcile with the defendant, but to no avail. It followed that the plaintiff believed the only feasible option remaining was divorce, pursuant to art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

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, Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, and Manhaj al-Thullab juz VI. Despite failing to attend the proceeding, the court acknowledged that the defendant had been summonsed officially, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 30 January 2011 and had one child (born 28 September 2013). By March 2013, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant:

1. often gambled and consumed alcohol;
2. hit the plaintiff every time he came home intoxicated;
3. inadequately provided for the plaintiff; and
4. did not provide the plaintiff with religious guidance.

Problems escalated in October 2014 when the plaintiff discovered the defendant was having an extra-marital affair with another woman. The parties then separated and ceased communication, and the plaintiff filed for divorce.

The court found that the marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes 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, the court, pursuant to art 39 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, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in shugra), as contemplated by art 119(2)(c) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 26 February 2008 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since February 2012, she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly, primarily as a result of the defendant having married another woman, unbeknownst to the plaintiff. It was also in 2012 when the defendant left the parties' home. Feeling the parties' differences were irreconcilable, the plaintiff lodged an application for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

Despite being formally summonsed, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the defendant failed to attend court. Regardless, 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 application on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible, and that the plaintiff had established sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce, as required under art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 65 of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary. It also cited Kitab Ia’natul Thalibin Juz III in support of its decision.

The parties were married on 30 December 2000 and had one child. After living in various rental properties over nine years, the parties settled, but a month later separated. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2010, she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly, primarily because the defendant had married another woman, unbeknownst to the plaintiff. In January 2015, the defendant finally left the parties' matrimonial home. The plaintiff believed an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) was the only feasible option available.

Despite being formally summonsed, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the defendant failed to attend court. Regardless, 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 application on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible, and that the plaintiff had established sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce, as required under art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 65 of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary. It also cited Kitab Ia’natul Thalibin Juz III, in support of its decision.

The parties were married on 12 February 2014 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, as early as March 2014, the marriage had begun to deteriorate because the defendant had:

1. refused to work, meaning he could not meet the parties' domestic needs, thereby compelling the plaintiff to work, and the plaintiff's parents to cover their needs; and
2. physically assaulted the plaintiff.

Problems escalated and, in December 2014, the defendant left the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that she had attempted to reconcile with the defendant, but to no avail. It followed that the plaintiff believed the only feasible option remaining was divorce, pursuant to art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

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, Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, and Manhaj al-Thullab juz VI. Despite failing to attend the proceeding, the court acknowledged that the defendant had been summonsed officially, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

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).

The parties were married on 6 November 1999, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents. They had four children, all of whom were now in the care of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had always been quarrelsome because the defendant had been reluctant to adhere to the requirements of Islam, that is, praying five times a day (shalat) and fasting for Ramadhan. Problems escalated in September 2004, the defendant leaving the plaintiff without her knowledge, after yet another argument. Since then the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support, and was no longer in contact with the plaintiff or their four children. Owing to her own impecuniosity, the plaintiff requested that the state bear her court costs.

The Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21, that being an everlasting and joyful, as well as peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) domestic life. It acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict, per 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 17 June 2007. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since January 2013, the marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the defendant had not provided the plaintiff and their children with sufficient financial support since January 2013;
2. the defendant gambled;
3. the defendant's sibling had discovered that the defendant had been having an extra-marital affair with another woman in mid-April 2013; and
4. the parties, in July 2013, quarrelled until the defendant made the plaintiff leave the matrimonial home.

The defendant conceded most of these points. He informed the court that he had endeavoured to reconcile with the plaintiff, but that she had not been taking his calls or returning his text messages. Regardless, the court found that there were sufficient reasons to grant the plaintiff a divorce, as required by art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The defendant's adultery and gambling satisfied art 19(a) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, while ongoing conflict between the parties satisfied art 19(f) and art 116(f). Accordingly, the Court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The parties were married informally in 2000, and formally on 7 June 2006. Since 2000, they had lived together and had three children (aged 11, 6, and 5). Initially, the marriage was harmonious, but by December 2008 it had become quarrelsome. The applicant submitted that the respondent was never content with the amount of money with which he provided her, despite the applicant contributing the majority of his monthly income to the marriage every month (IDR 900,000). Problems escalated in October 2014, culminating in the applicant forcing the respondent to relocate to her parents' home, while the applicant stayed with his parents. The parties lived apart, did not communicate, and the applicant did not provide the respondent with any financial support.

The applicant sought permission from the court to divorce the respondent. Three days before the second court hearing, however, the respondent submitted that she and the applicant had been physically intimate together. The applicant did not deny this and the court held that such intimacy between the parties was indicative of a happy and harmonious marriage. Therefore, the applicant no longer had grounds for divorce pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1979, in conjunction with art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. On this basis, the court dismissed the applicant’s request for permission to divorce and ordered him to pay court costs (IDR 316,000).

The parties were married on 22 May 2012 and had one child, born on 29 August 2012. By September 2012, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant's parents would meddle in their domestic affairs, the defendant had converted to Christianity, and the defendant was an irresponsible parent in all regards. On 22 May 2013, the defendant had left the matrimonial home for no apparent reason, and, since then, had failed to provide the plaintiff with any information as to his whereabouts. The plaintiff's inquiries with the defendant's family and friends were to no avail as they knew nothing. The plaintiff submitted to the court that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer attainable.

The court found that information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's claim. It noted 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, 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 shughro).

The parties were married on 4 November 2012 and had their first and only child on 5 April 2014. Since February 2013, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff alleged that this was primarily the result of the defendant misleading the plaintiff's parents as to his financial state. On 27 December 2013, the defendant had left the matrimonial home for no apparent reason, and, since then, had failed to provide the plaintiff with any information as to his whereabouts, or any financial support for their child. The plaintiff's inquiries with the defendant's family and friends were to no avail as they knew nothing themselves. 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. 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 27 March 2005 and had two children (born 21 February 2008 and 21 April 2012). From 2007, the parties' marriage had begun to deteriorate. The plaintiff submitted that this was because:

1. the defendant, a car dealer, owed money to his clients;
2. the plaintiff often had to pay the defendant’s debts;
3. the defendant never acknowledged any wrongdoing; and
4. the defendant spent all the money that he earned on himself.

In May 2011, the defendant left the plaintiff, providing her with no information of where he was going. For the next three years and two months, the defendant failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. Accordingly, the plaintiff submitted to the court that the parties' marriage was irreconcilable and filed for an irrevocable divorce for a fee (talak satu khul’i).

Despite the defendant's absence from the proceeding, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, finding the defendant in contravention of figures 1, 2 and 4 of his marriage vows (janji talik talak). Citing Kitab Syarqowi alat tahrir juz II, as well as art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce for a fee (talak satu khul’i), ordering the plaintiff to pay a divorce fee (iwadl) of IDR 10,000, as well as court costs (IDR 346,000).

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 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 7 September 2005 and had two children. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. By the beginning of 2012, however, it had become quarrelsome as the defendant would become unnecessarily suspicious of the plaintiff, and stopped providing her with financial support. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant would also drink excessively and, when intoxicated, become argumentative. While the plaintiff tolerated the defendant's behaviour for the sake of maintaining the marriage, in February 2014, during an argument, the defendant struck the plaintiff, caused damage to the parties' home, and took all of the plaintiff's clothes to his parents' home.

In March 2014, the plaintiff and her parents relocated to Tobelo, the plaintiff no longer being able to cope with the defendant's behaviour. For the past year the parties had remained separated, the defendant providing the plaintiff with no financial support during that year. Accordingly, the plaintiff, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

In the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, concurring with the plaintiff that the marriage was indeed beyond repair.

The parties were married on 10 June 2011, after which they had lived with the parents of the defendant's first wife for two months, and then with the defendant's neighbour for one year and three months. The plaintiff submitted that, initially, the marriage had been harmonious, but by September 2011 it had become quarrelsome because:

1. the defendant's child from his first marriage had told the plaintiff to leave their home because they did not like her; and
2. the defendant had loaned money to another person without first informing the plaintiff.

On 2 November 2012, feeling unappreciated, the plaintiff left for Balikpapan without telling the defendant. The parties had remained separated for the five months leading up to the proceeding. Feeling the parties' marriage could not be salvaged, the plaintiff 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, 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 4 April 2004 and had two children, who were now in the care of the respondent. They had lived with the applicant's parents for two years, before moving to the respondent's parents' home, where they had lived for six years and five months. The applicant submitted that the marriage had been harmonious until mid-2008, when the respondent had begun to flout the applicant's wishes, and the respondent's family had begun to meddle in the parties' domestic affairs. In June 2010, the applicant quarrelled with the respondent's family yet again, resulting in the applicant being asked to leave the respondent's parents' home, before the local imam was able to bring them to reconcile. In September 2012, following yet another argument, the applicant returned to his own parents' home.

The parties had remained separated for the seven months leading up to the proceeding, which had caused the applicant to suffer emotionally. Resigned to the fact that the marriage could not be salvaged, the applicant requested the court's permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent.

Despite the respondent'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 applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.