SHARIAsource

J bin T passed away on 24 January 2008, stipulating as his beneficiaries: C binti S (wife and first appellant); J binti J (daughter); A (mother); P binti T (sister); R binti T (brother); T bin T (brothers); and N binti T (sister and fifth respondent).

The Meulaboh Shari'a Court (lower court) declared as joint property of the deceased and first appellant two shophouses, two parcels of land, accumulated social security monies totalling IDR 770 million, the remaining proceeds from the sale of a truck (IDR 70 million), and insurance monies totalling IDR 100,000. As the estate of the deceased alone, the lower court stipulated four separate parcels of land.

The lower court distributed to the first appellant half of what was determined to be the joint property of the first appellant and deceased, while the other half, along with the deceased's personal estate, was distributed among the stipulated beneficiaries.

The Court amended the decision of the lower court, applying the Supreme Court-endorsed principle that, if the deceased had a child/children, his estate was only to be devised/bequeathed to his parents, spouse and children, to the exclusion of all other beneficiaries. Accordingly, as the deceased was survived by his daughter (second appellant), his estate was to be distributed among both appellants and the deceased's mother.

The Court also disagreed with the lower court's finding that the social security monies (IDR 770 million) and the insurance monies (IDR 100,000) were the joint property of the deceased and first appellant, because art 22(1) and (2) of Government Regulation No. 14 of 1993 requires that life insurance be paid to the surviving spouse or child/children, and in the event there is no surviving spouse or child/children, to the closest living blood relative(s). Accordingly, the monies were to be paid to the appellants. As for the insurance policy monies, art 1(1) of Law No. 2 of 1992 on Insurance Companies required that those monies be paid to the parties specified in the deceased's policy.

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 ba'in sughra).

The Court found the lower court's judgment to be sound and accurate and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

H binti T (deceased) had placed in trust a parcel of land upon which was located a two-storey shop building. Matters were complicated as the building was still subject to a rent agreement involving a third party and, prior to the conclusion of the agreement, the deceased had passed away. This did not preclude the land and building from becoming subject of the deceased's will, however.

The land and building had been devised to the first respondent via the appellant as an intermediary. The Court found that, even though the land and building had been devised by the deceased to the first respondent, before the will had become valid, the deceased had already devised the land and building to another party, thereby rendering the endowment to the first respondent invalid, pursuant to arts 194(2) and 217(3) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. That the first respondent had also been collecting rent monies pursuant to the pre-existing rent agreement from July 2002-July 2007 meant that he was ordered by the Court to transfer those monies to the trustee body.

The Court also found the appellant's claim lacked clarity and cause and, therefore, dismissed it. It also found, however, that the respondents' claim that the appellant lacked the standing to lodge a claim was incorrect. This was because it was immaterial morally and customarily that at the time of executing the trust there was not yet an official notice of appointment or power of attorney from the trustee (nazir). Indeed, it was custom in the area that a trusted person would manage religious property, meaning that the appellant had the capacity to look after property subject of the endowment to ensure it did not go missing, as well as the capacity to lodge a claim.

The Court also disagreed with the lower court, which found that the notice of endowment (dated 12 September 1998) was the same as a will, which, based on this line of reasoning, meant there were two different wills. The Court found this inherently incorrect, both in terms of the purpose of the notice, as well as in terms of the notice's applicability.

The Court deemed the first respondent lacked the standing to manage the land subject of the trust and ordered him to transfer the land to the trustee body.

The parties had divorced and sought from the Kutacene Shari'a Court (lower court) an order to have their joint assets stipulated and split. The lower court stipulated their joint assets as a shophouse, several parcels of land, a house, 15 household appliances, and a motorised-trishaw (becak), and ordered that the necessary measures be taken by the parties to ensure an even 50/50 split.

While the appellant sought to challenge the decision, the Court found that the appellant had incorrectly executed his power of attorney to grant power to his legal advisors to act on his behalf. Rather than specifying the court as the Aceh Shari'a Court (Mahkamah Syar'iyah Aceh), the appellant had written the Banda Aceh High Shari'a Court (Mahkmah Syari'ah Tinggi Banda Aceh). While the power of attorney document had been furnished with the necessary stamp duty, it was also missing signatures and the date. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.

The parties were married on 1 June 2001. They had lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ home and had one child (aged 11). The plaintiff submitted that, initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By January 2011, however, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had had an extra-marital affair and a clandestine marriage (nikah siri);
2. had not contributed financially to the marriage with the plaintiff;
3. often hit the plaintiff when the parties would argue.

Problems escalated in January 2012 culminating in the plaintiff leaving the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the circumstances had caused the marriage to deteriorate irreparably, and requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bai’in shughra).

The court found that the marriage was irreparable and could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and that the plaintiff’s claim satisfied the requirements of art 39(2) 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. The court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba’in Sughra) and ordered her to pay costs (IDR 506,000).

The parties were married on 10 October 1998. They lived together and had two children (aged 14 and 8). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By November 2013, however, the defendant had left the plaintiff without providing her any further support. The parties ceased communication. The plaintiff claimed that the circumstances had caused the marriage to deteriorate irreparably, and requested the court grant her a divorce for a fee (talak satu khul’i).

The court found that the marriage was irreparable and could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and that the plaintiff’s reasons for the claim satisfied the requirements of arts 34(3) and 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court granted the plaintiff a judicial divorce (talak satu khul’i) and ordered the plaintiff to pay divorce compensation to the defendant in the amount of IDR 10,000 (uang iwadl), and to pay all court costs (IDR 346,000).

The parties were married on 5 May 2002. Since May 2006, however, the marriage had become disharmonious. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant:

1. had frequently become emotional and angry and would utter obscenities, even physically assaulting the plaintiff;
2. was never transparent with the plaintiff as to his finances and salary; and
3. had stopped providing the plaintiff with emotional and financial support since May 2006.

Despite these issues, the parties had remained under the one roof.

In the defendant's absence, the court found that the parties no longer loved each other as husband and wife, as envisaged by art 77(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, ongoing conflict between the parties enabled the court, pursuant to 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 shugra).

The parties were married on 11 Febuary 2007, after which they lived together for four years, three of which were harmonious. The parties also had one child, who was in the defendant's care at the time of the proceeding. The plaintiff, however, submitted that, since August 2010, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. This was a result of the defendant:

1. often becoming angry without any apparent reason and no longer caring for the plaintiff; and
2. no longer providing the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support.

In the defendant's absence, the court found that the parties no longer loved each other as husband and wife, as envisaged by art 77(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, ongoing conflict between the parties enabled the court, pursuant to 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 shugra).

The parties were married on 2 February 1994 and had two children. They had lived harmoniously as husband and wife for 21 years, however, in 2000, the respondent fell ill. This had compromised her ability to be physically intimate with the applicant for approximately the past four years. Concerned that he would commit adultery (zina), in December 2014, the applicant requested the respondent's permission to marry again. The respondent granted him permission. The woman the applicant proposed to marry was fit and proper in that she did not breach any shari'a or civil legislative requirements: she was not a blood relative of the applicant or respondent, nor had they shared a wet nurse; she was a divorcee and not engaged to another man; and her marriage guardian was prepared to marry them. The applicant also told the court that he believed he was capable of having more than one wife as his monthly salary was IDR 5 million, he had promised to be fair to both wives as well as his children, and the respondent had prepared a written statement in support of the applicant. The applicant also told the court that he and the respondent were prepared to separate their joint assets if the applicant were granted judicial permission to marry again.

The court counselled the applicant on the consequences and risks of polygamy, advising him not to go ahead with the second marriage. Its advice, however, went unheeded. With this in mind, the court cited verse 3 of Surat Annisa from the Qur'an, which does not prohibit polygamy but places the onus on the man to prove he will treat both wives fairly, as enunciated in art 55(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court was of the opinion that the applicant would treat his wives and children fairly, and, as required by art 5(1.b) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 58(1.b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, could financially afford to care for them. After the applicant signed a statement attesting to do so, meeting the requirements of art 5(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Law No. 1 of 1974, as well as art 41(b) and (c) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975. The court acceded to the applicant's request and stipulated the items acquired by the parties as a married couple as their joint assets.

The parties were married on 22 May 2011. They lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ house and had one child (aged 3). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. After two years, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant as a husband had not provided the plaintiff and their child with sufficient financial support, forcing the plaintiff herself to work to provide for the family. Problems escalated when the defendant left the plaintiff without notice. The plaintiff submitted that these circumstances had caused the marriage to deteriorate irreparably, and requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce.

The court found that the marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff had met the evidentiary burden contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, and, 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 Ba’in Sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 6 October 1998. They lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ home and had three children (aged 16, 8 and 4). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. In 2011, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant, since 2011, had not provided the plaintiff with financial support, and that the defendant, in 2013, had married another woman without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent. Problems escalated and the defendant left the plaintiff in 2011, after which time communication between the parties ceased. The plaintiff claimed to have suffered as a result of this and requested the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba’in Sughro).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff had met the evidentiary burden contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, and, 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 ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The plaintiff (unemployed, aged 21) and the defendant (unemployed, aged 24) were married on 29 April 2012. They lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ home and had no children. In May 2012 the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had been reluctant to work, and had not fulfilled his obligation to support the plaintiff, resulting in the plaintiff’s parents having to financially support the parties. Problems escalated in June 2012 when the defendant left the plaintiff. The defendant did not disclose his whereabouts and never returned to the plaintiff, providing her with no financial support. The plaintiff claimed to have suffered as a result and requested the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce.

While the plaintiff cooperated with the Court, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding, despite having been summonsed. Due to the defendant's absence, pre-trial mediation, pursuant to s 7(1) of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2008, was not possible. The Court proceeded in the defendant's absence.

The Court found that the marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and that the plaintiff’s reasons for the claim satisfied the requirements of art 39(2) 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.

The Court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) and ordered her to pay all court costs in the amount of IDR 386,000.

The parties were married on 30 July 1994. The parties lived together and had three children (ages 19, 16 and 10). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. In October 2012, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The applicant submitted that the respondent had been disobedient, selfish and inconsiderate to his needs. Problems escalated in 2013 when the respondent stopped sleeping in the parties’ bedroom without her husband’s approval. The parties ceased to share any physical intimacy and seldom communicated. The applicant submitted that the respondent had stated that she did not need the applicant and had requested a divorce. The parties’ differences became irreconcilable and the applicant requested the court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj’i).

Before the proceeding, the applicant had failed to make a court costs down payment (panjar biaya perkara), despite being sent a reminder from the court. The court dismissed the case and halted the proceeding in accordance with art 49(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary as amended by Law No. 3 of 2006, in conjunction with Law No. 50 of 2009, and art 2(4) of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Authority, in conjunction with art 57(3) of Law No. 7 of 1989, and ordered the applicant to pay all court costs (IDR 841,000).

The parties were married on 2 June 2013 and lived together in the applicant’s parents’ home. They had no children. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By August 2014, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly, primarily because the respondent’s parents wanted the respondent to live in their own home and not at the applicants's parents' home. Problems escalated when the respondent left the applicant to live with her parents and the parties separated. The parties' differences were irreconcilable and the applicant requested that the court grant him permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj’i).

The court found that the marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes 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, that the plaintiff’s reasons for the claim satisfied the requirements of art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and art 70(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary as amended by Law No. 3 of 2006 and Law No. 50 of 2009, and art 131(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court, therefore, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj’i) and ordered the applicant to pay all court costs (IDR 516,000).

The parties were married on 26 November 2005. They lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ home and had one child (aged 8). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. In May 2008, however, the defendant left the plaintiff without any notice. Communication between the parties ceased, and the plaintiff's efforts to locate the defendant were unsuccessful.

The plaintiff, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, requested the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughro). The court acceded to the plaintiff's request, acknowledging that the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years.

The parties were married on 26 August 2006. They lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ home and had one child (aged 8). By 2011, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant:

1. consumed alcohol excessively; and
2. frequently gambled.

In 2012, the defendant left the plaintiff, never to return. He made no attempts to communicate with the plaintiff, and provided her with no financial support. The plaintiff claimed to have suffered as a result and requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra). The court, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to plaintiff’s request on the grounds that the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years.

The applicant had submitted a marriage ratification request to the court, dated 8 January 2010. The request stated that she and M. Yusuf bin Jafar (deceased, 29 December 2009) were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 10 June 1949, with her older brother Muhammad Yunas acting as her marriage guardian. The marriage was witnessed by two other persons, the names of whom the applicant could not recall. The applicant's dowry was IDR 40.

The applicant required a marriage ratification certificate in order to access her deceased husband's pension, life insurance, and widow's pension. The marriage had never been registered pursuant to current legal provisions. The applicant and her husband, however, had seven children, all of whom were now adults. Moreover, they had never divorced and no one had ever had any objections to their marriage.

In acceding to the applicant's request, the court cited arts 7(2) and (3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, which granted it powers to solemnise a marriage, as well as one that preceded the enactment of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The Court also cited the rule of fiqh contained in Kitab Tuhfah Jilid IV, which mandates the recognition of the marriage of a woman who is of age and sound mind ('aqil baligh).

The cassation applicant had previously lodged an appeal in the Surabaya Religious Court for an order to stop his daughter (aged 17) marrying her boyfriend. The Surabaya Religious Court dismissed the cassation applicant’s appeal and ordered him to pay court costs (IDR 166,000). The cassation applicant then submitted a request for cassation on 7 March 2012, claiming that the Surabaya Religious Court had made an error in judgment. The cassation applicant claimed that his daughter was underage when she lodged applications to the local Office of Religious Affairs for dispensation to marry. He was primarily concerned with his daughter's application for Determination of Guardianship. The cassation applicant alleged that:

1. his daughter was only 16 years of age when she lodged the application for a Determination of Guardianship, despite stating that she was 17 years of age on the application;
2. the Court should have taken into account that his daughter, being under 18, should not have been allowed to lodge legal documents or appoint an attorney to lodge them on her behalf;
3. his daughter was not an adult and, therefore, her actions were not in accordance with art 47 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, which states that a child below 18 years and unmarried remains in the custody of their parents insofar as they have not been divested of parental power, and that parents shall represent their child in any legal conduct in and out of court, and art 50, which states that a child under the age of 18, unmarried and not, under the authority of their parents, shall be placed in the care of their guardian.

The Supreme Court found that the Surabaya Religious Court did not misapply the law, nor did it make a judgment contrary to the law. Accordingly, it dismissed the cassation applicant’s request, and ordered the cassation applicant to pay court costs in the amount of IDR 500,000.

The parties were married on 25 February 1998 and had their one and only child on 28 June 1998. In March 1999, the defendant left for Malaysia to work for two years, returning in March 2001, when he then lived at the plaintiff's parents' home for approximately three months. In June 2001, the plaintiff left to work in Taiwan and returned around December 2002. Then in June 2003, the defendant left for Malaysia for another two years to work, returning in June 2005, where he then lived with the plaintiff for approximately 10 months. In April 2006, the plaintiff left for Hong Kong to work for more than three years, returning on 14 November 2009.

Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. In June 2005, however, or since the defendant had returned from Malaysia, the parties had quarrelled regularly, largely because the defendant had only sent the plaintiff money on three occasions. Moreover, upon returning to Indonesia, the defendant refused to work, and the plaintiff could only find work as a waiter at a soto roadside stall (warung). To meet their domestic needs, in April 2006, the plaintiff returned to Hong Kong to work. During this time the defendant had begun to expect that the plaintiff would send money home on a monthly basis. When the plaintiff returned on 14 November 2009, she discovered that the defendant had sold her gold jewellery, as well as their Honda motorcycle. Moreover, the defendant forbade the plaintiff from seeking financial assistance from the defendant's parents, which caused the parties to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff was concerned that the defendant was not being entirely truthful with him. Feeling that their differences were irreconcilable, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce.

Pursuant to art 34(1) 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, as well as Kitab Fiqhus Sunnah Jilid II, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), and ordered her to adhere to 90 days of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted) before marrying again, pursuant to art 39(1)b of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 516,000).

The parties were married on 12 March 2011 and lived together in the cassation respondent’s parents’ home. They had three children (aged 12, 11 and 7). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious, but by 2003 it had become quarrelsome. The cassation respondent alleged that the cassation applicant would regularly beat and kick her leaving her bruised and swollen, sometimes in front of her parents. The parties eventually separated.

The cassation respondent had successfully requested that the Bireuen Shari'a Court (Decision: 11/Pdt.G/2013/MS-Bir) grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), claiming that the marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

On 17 December 2014, the cassation respondent successfully sought an affirmation of the decision from the Aceh Shari'a Court (Decision: 95/Pdt.G/2013/MS-Aceh).

On 28 January 2014, the cassation applicant lodged a request for cassation, claiming that the lower courts had incorrectly applied the law, that the evidence of the cassation respondent was inadequate, and that the court had not taken into consideration the facts of the case.

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation applicant’s claim, ruling in favour of the cassation respondent, and ordered the cassation applicant to pay court costs (IDR 500,000).