SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 6 February 2004 and had two children. The applicant submitted that, while the first six years of the parties' marriage had been harmonious, it had been quarrelsome from thereon. The applicant submitted that the respondent had been disobedient and disrespectful towards the applicant as the head of the household by, for example, leaving the parties' home without the applicant's permission, neglecting her duties as a homemaker. Moreover, the respondent would act or make decisions without considering the applicant's opinion. The applicant also submitted that he had suspected the respondent was having an extra-marital affair, which had been a cause of conflict between the parties.

On 25 July 2011, the respondent left the parties' home without first informing the applicant. The applicant's subsequent attempts to locate the respondent had been in vain, and he submitted that he was resigned to the fact that the marriage could not be salvaged. Accordingly, he requested that the court grant him 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.

The parties were married on 31 March 2011, after which they had lived with the respondent's parents for almost two and a half years. In August 2013, however, the parties separated after their marriage had become quarrelsome. The applicant submitted that this was because the respondent had no apparent reason for not wanting to live with the applicant's parents at a time when the applicant had to take care of his elderly parents. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage was no longer joyful, peaceful, hopeful and loving (bahagia, sakinah, mawadah dan rohmah) based on one almighty God (Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa). The parties' disagreement and subsequent quarrelling had also prevented them from conceiving a child. Accordingly, the applicant requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, arts 19(f) and 22 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. The court handed down its verdict despite the respondent's absence from court.

The parties were married on 13 October 2014. They lived with the plaintiff's parents for nine months, the first seven of which, the plaintiff submitted, had been harmonious. Since May 2015, however, their marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant's wage was insufficient to provide for his family meaning that the parties would have to rely on the plaintiff's parents to meet their daily needs. Moreover, that the defendant refused to look for additional employment to supplement his income. In July 2015, after problems between the parties escalated, the defendant left the plaintiff to live with his own parents. The parties had remained separated for the six months leading up to the proceeding.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's application, acknowledging that the parties' marriage was beyond repair. Pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 29 December 2006 and had two children, both of whom were in the care of the plaintiff at the time of the proceeding. The plaintiff submitted that the first seven months of the parties' marriage had been harmonious, but since November 2013 their marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. seldom provided for the parties' family;
2. frequently returned to his parents' home without the plaintiff's knowledge, even spending more time with his parents than the plaintiff;
3. was dependent on his parents; and
4. did not act as the leader of the household.

Problems escalated in January 2014 when the defendant left the plaintiff for no apparent reason. The parties had remained separated since. Accordingly, the plaintiff felt that the parties' marriage was irreparable and that an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) was the only feasible remaining option.

The court, pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for two consecutive years or more.

The parties were married on 3 August 2015. They had lived at the respondent's home and had no children. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By April 2016, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial income. Problems escalated in May 2016 resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past month. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 4 September 2006. They had lived with the applicant's parents and had no children. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By May 2015, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial income, and no longer valued the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Problems escalated in June 2015 resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past year. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 1 October 2014. They had lived with the applicant's parents and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By April 2016, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial income, and no longer valued the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Problems escalated that same month resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past three months. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 22 May 2015. They had lived with the applicant's parents and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By November 2015, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial income, and no longer valued the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Problems escalated in December 2015 resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past six months. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 12 August 2004. They had lived with the respondent's parents and had two children. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By January 2016, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial income, and no longer valued the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Problems escalated in March 2016 resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past three months. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 24 April 2014. They had lived with the respondent's parents and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By April 2015, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial income, and no longer valued the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Problems escalated in March 2016 resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past three months. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 8 July 2012. They had lived with the applicant's parents and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By November 2015, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial income, and no longer valued the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Problems escalated that same month resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past eight months. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 7 October 2013. They had lived with the applicant's parents and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By January 2016, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial income, and no longer valued the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Problems escalated that same month resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past six months. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 30 April 2014. They had lived with the applicant's parents and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By February 2016, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial income, and no longer valued the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Problems escalated in March 2016 resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past three months. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

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 Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The Court, however, dismissed the appeal, citing witness evidence that the parties' regular quarrelling had resulted in them separating for approximately eight months, thereby invoking art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The Court also referenced the lower court judge's unsuccessful attempts to counsel the parties to reconcile.

The court acknowledged that, based on the facts of the preceding interlocutory decision, the parties' marriage had been quarrelsome since May 2015. This was because the defendant had failed in his spousal duties to the plaintiff, resulting in the plaintiff returning to live with her parents. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

This is a reference to Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq's position on recognizing the validity of the rules of other religions, such as marriage among the Magians, for example. Hossein Modarressi cites this reference as an example of one of the legal presumptions of al-Ṣādiq's legal school: the rule of recognition.

This source is part of the Online Companion to Hossein Modarressi, Text and Interpretation: Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and His Legacy in Islamic Law (Harvard University Press, 2022).

This is a reference to a collection of multiple reports in connection with mutʿa marriage. Hossein Modarressi cites this source to argue that Sunnī scholars disagreed over whether and when mutʿa was abrogated by the Prophet or, as was commonly believed, proscribed by ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb.

This source is part of the Online Companion to Hossein Modarressi, Text and Interpretation: Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and His Legacy in Islamic Law (Harvard University Press, 2022).

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 18 October 2012. They lived with the plaintiff’s parents' and did not have any children. Initially, their marriage was harmonious. By the beginning of 2014, however, they had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the matrimonial home was no longer harmonious because:

1. the defendant's spending on non-domestic needs had resulted in debts to a particular bank (one witness acknowledged that debt collectors would visit the parties' residence to collect), while he would borrow the plaintiff's car without her knowledge or permission; and
2. the defendant had failed to provide his family with appropriate financial support because he seldom worked, and failed to care for the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s family.

Problems escalated in 2014, resulting in the plaintiff evicting the defendant from her parents' home. The defendant never returned and provided the plaintiff with no financial support. The plaintiff’s attempts to reconcile with the defendant were in vain, as she did not know his whereabouts.

The plaintiff, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975 on Marriage, sought a divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court found that the purpose of marriage, being a happy and harmonious home life, was no longer feasible. Therefore, there were sufficient reasons, pursuant to art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.