SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 22 June 2012, but, for the duration of their short marriage, had never lived together as husband and wife. Work commitments meant that the defendant lived on a plantation in Riau, while the plaintiff lived at her parents' home in Padang. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been disharmonious from the outset, the defendant showing a general lack of concern for the plaintiff as a husband should for his wife. For instance, three days after their marriage, the defendant left for Riau without taking the plaintiff because he supposedly did not yet have a house there. When the defendant returned to the plaintiff's parents' home for Eid al'Fitr (Idul Fitri) in 2012, he refused to be physically intimate with the plaintiff, and, at the end of January 2013, when the plaintiff visited the defendant, they were only physically intimate twice in one month.

After refusing to be physically intimate with the plaintiff again, the plaintiff returned home to Padang in April 2013, and since May 2013, the defendant had provided the plaintiff with no financial support. Despite the efforts of the plaintiff's parents to intervene and resolve the parties' problems, on 7 August 2013, the defendant effectively handed the plaintiff over to her parents without any legitimate reason. Since then communication between the parties had been severed and they had remained separated for approximately 10 months, leading up to the proceeding.

The court found that the parties' differences were irreconcilable, and, pursuant to art 39(2) 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, believed ongoing conflict between the parties constituted sufficient grounds to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The parties were married on 16 August 2013 and had one child. Their marriage had been harmonious until mid-2015, after which time it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. was unemployed, meaning he was unable to provide for the plaintiff and the parties' child, forcing the plaintiff to rely on her parents for financial support;
2. would frequently leave the parties' home after shalat magrib (sunset prayers), returning the next morning, then spending much of the day in bed; and
3. would frequently direct profane language at the plaintiff.

The plaintiff submitted that whenever the parties would argue, the defendant would resort to slapping, kicking, and strangling the plaintiff. Problems came to a head in May 2016, resulting in the defendant leaving the plaintiff to live with his parents. The parties had remained separated for the past five months. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been unsuccessful and the plaintiff, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence, 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 on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Ar-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, regarding the supposed tranquility of marriage.

The parties were married on 3 December 2012 and had one child. Their marriage had been harmonious for the first year, but by January 2014 it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant would frequently:

1. mention the money with which he had provided the plaintiff as though she did not deserve it; and
2. direct profane language at the plaintiff when the parties would argue, as well as threatening to divorce the plaintiff.

Whenever the parties would quarrel, the defendant would leave the parties' home, taking with him all his clothes. In August 2016, the plaintiff answered a call from another woman on the defendant's mobile phone at 2.00am. When the plaintiff inquired with the defendant as to the identity of the woman, the defendant answered dishonestly and then returned to his parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the past two months in the lead up to the proceeding. The plaintiff, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro).

Despite the defendant's absence, 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 on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Ar-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, regarding the supposed tranquility of marriage.

The parties were married on 23 December 2007, after which they lived with the respondent's parents for approximately three years. The marriage had been harmonious for the first three months and the parties had their first and only child on 4 March 2008. Since September 2009, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The applicant submitted that this was due to the respondent:

1. never valuing the applicant as head of the household;
2. not being grateful for what the parties had, including the applicant's salary, which was not stable;
3. becoming jealous if the applicant were to return home late; and
4. when angry, often uttering obscenities that the applicant deeemed inappropriate.

As a result, the applicant left the matrimonial home on 23 September 2009, and had been living with his parents for the 11 months leading up to the proceeding. During those 11 months, the parties had not communicated, and the applicant claimed that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was no longer feasible. The applicant felt that his claim met the requirements of art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, for grounds for divorce.

In a written response, the respondent submitted that she also no longer wished to remain married to the applicant. Moreover, that she had told the applicant to leave her parents' home, that she had been working to support their child, that she did not feel that the applicant valued her as his wife, and that the applicant's temperament meant that she did not respect him as the head of their family.

The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds that the marriage was no longer tenable due to ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 15 November 2000 and had four children. At the time of the proceeding, the defendant was serving an eight-month prison sentence for having beaten the plaintiff on 25 October 2014. The plaintiff submitted that entering the third year of their marriage, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. This was due to:

1. a difference of opinion over domestic matters;
2. the defendant's insistence on using profane language and physically assaulting the plaintiff when they would argue, resulting in the plaintiff having to see a psychologist; and
3. the defendant having carried on an extra-marital affair with another woman, to whom he had also provided financial assistance.

The parties had been separated, as a result, since November 2014. The plaintiff, therefore, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), and that it order the defendant to provide her with maintenance back-payments.

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. It was, therefore, 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 sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The court also cited fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) from Kitab Al Muhadzdzab juz II, page 164, and Kitab l'anatut Thalibin, page 85, both of which state that a husband is to provide maintenance back-payments to his wife in the event he had neglected to provide for her and their children for a period. It distinguished this fiqh, however, on the grounds that the parties had been separated for that time. In regards to the parties' four children, the court ordered that the two children under the age of 12 (belum mumayyiz) remain in the custody of the plaintiff. Accordingly, it ordered the defendant to pay to the plaintiff at least IDR 800,000 per month until the children reach the age of 21.

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 23 May 2011. They had lived together in the respondent’s parents’ home for three years and four months. The parties had one child (aged 3). Initially, the marriage was harmonious, but by December 2012 it had become quarrelsome. The applicant alleged that the respondent’s parents often meddled in the parties' domestic affairs leading the respondent to often ask the applicant for divorce.

Problems escalated in September 2014. The applicant left the respondent and resided at his parents' home. The parties lived apart for six months, during which time the the applicant provided the respondent financial support, however, the parties did not communicate.

The applicant, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, filed for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The court found that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a happy and peaceful home life, was no longer feasible. Therefore, there were sufficient reasons, pursuant to art 70 of Law No. 7 of 1989, in conjunction with arts 19(f) and 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to grant the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj’i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court ordered the applicant to pay court costs (IDR 391,000).

The parties were married on 8 July 2011 and had their only child on 6 July 2012. They lived together at the plaintiff’s parents' home. Initially, their marriage had been harmonious. After one year, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the disharmony was due to the defendant:

1. being excessively jealous;
2. failing to exercise his obligations as head of the household; and
3. making references to divorce.

The parties ceased living together on 2 December 2014. The plaintiff claimed that these circumstances caused the marriage to deteriorate irreparably, and requested that the court grant her a divorce (talak satu bain shughra). The plaintiff also requested that the court grant her custody of the parties' child, and order the defendant to pay, in addition to costs for clothing and education of the child, child support in the amount of IDR 1,000,000 per month until the child becomes of age.

The court found that the parties could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage, as stipulated in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Therefore, the court, pursuant to 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, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties. The court did not consider the plaintiff’s claims for custody or child support, however, as the plaintiff had withdrawn them prior to trial. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay all court costs (IDR 566,000).

The parties were married on 22 March 1999 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that for the past three years, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly. Moreover, that the defendant often physically assaulted her, and that she had discovered that the defendant had had an extra-marital affair. When problems escalated between the parties, the defendant finally left the matrimonial home to live with his parents, where he had remained for the past three years. During that time 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 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 parties were married on 24 August 2008 and had lived with the plaintiff's parents for one year and four months, before moving to a rental property in Takkalao for a year, before then living in their own home in Bojo for a month. The parties also had one child, who was, at the time of the proceeding, in the plaintiff's care. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious initially, but, by October 2008, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant had failed to sufficiently provide for the plaintiff and their child. In December 2010, the parties quarrelled when the plaintiff felt disrespected by the defendant's parents. Then, in January 2011, the plaintiff left the parties' home for her parents' home, feeling she could no longer cope with her treatment at the hands of the defendant and his parents. The parties had remained separated for the following one year and nine months, which had caused the plaintiff to suffer greatly, and to feel that divorce was the only feasible option remaining.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), citing art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, in its assessment that the parties' marriage was no longer happy and joyful, nor peaceful, hopeful and loving. The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, based its decision on the fact that the parties had been apart for two consecutive years and ongoing conflict respectively.

The parties were married on 17 July 2010, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents for one month, before the plaintiff followed the defendant to Soe in Nusa Tenggara for two years, and then to Belu in 2012, when the defendant was transferred to work for the Police there. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had been happily married for three and a half years but had no children. Since January 2014, however, the parties had frequently quarrelled because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair with a woman called Hasni from Fatubenao. As a result, the parties had been separated since 19 January 2014, and the plaintiff had suffered emotionally. She requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The Court found that, as one of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff had not known about the dire state of the parties' marriage, the plaintiff had only produced one witness. The plaintiff had circumvented this problem, however, by providing her own sworn statement that the parties' marriage was no longer everlasting and joyful, or peaceful, hoping and loving (sakinah, mawaddah wa rahmah), as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, respectively. Accordingly, the Court acceded to the plaintiff's request, finding that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence of ongoing conflict between the parties, as required 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 9 December 1996 and had five children. They had lived with the plaintiff's parents for one month, before moving around Bukittinggi and Riau for approximately eight years, finally settling in Agam. The plaintiff submitted that, by the beginning of 2004, the marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. rather than providing for his family, would frequently preach with Jamaah Tabligh, incurring many debts along the way, forcing the plaintiff to have to work as a street vendor to make ends meet; and
2. had failed to care for and protect the plaintiff as his wife, showing little interest in any concerns she might have.

Problems escalated in August 2015 when the defendant fell from his motorcycle. When the plaintiff inquired with the defendant as to the cause of his fall, the defendant responded that he had been having negative thoughts about the plaintiff, which had caused him to fall. The plaintiff responded by saying that she could no longer live like this. The defendant's refusal to apologise left the plaintiff feeling offended. When the defendant then prepared a document stating that he divorced the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed for divorce with the court.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's request for 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 court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage no longer represented a joyful and everlasting union, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) family, as envisaged art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 16 August 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted, however, that the marriage had only been harmonious for six months until March 2013, after which time the defendant had:

1. failed to provide for his family, causing the plaintiff to have to work in order to meet their daily domestic needs;
2. failed to show appropriate care and consideration for the plaintiff and their child;
3. had an extra-marital affair, which the plaintiff had learned about from reading a text message sent to the defendant's mobile phone; and
4. been dishonest regarding his finances, crying poor when the plaintiff requested money to purchase groceries, but always having enough money to drink at roadside stalls (warung).

Problems escalated at the end of April 2015 when the defendant refused to provide the plaintiff with extra shopping money. When the plaintiff inquired as to where the defendant stored his money, and the defendant refused to answer, the plaintiff told the defendant to leave the matrimonial home. The parties had remained separated since.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's request for 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 court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage no longer represented a joyful and everlasting union, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) family, as envisaged art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, as well as Surah ar-Rum, verse 21 from the Qur'an.

The parties were married on 15 January 1998 and had one adopted child. They had also lived with the plaintiff's parents for approximately 20 years. Not long after they were married the parties began to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was because of the defendant's alcoholic tendencies, as well as the fact that she had to bear all financial responsibilities, including those associated with the parties' adopted child. Problems escalated in 2008 when the defendant forced the plaintiff's adopted child out of the plaintiff's parents' home, causing the plaintiff great emotional suffering. The defendant then left the plaintiff, the parties remaining separated up until the time of the proceeding. The plaintiff had subsequently searched Bau-Bau in an attempt to ascertain the defendant's whereabouts but had been unsuccessful. In 2008, the plaintiff also moved to Ambon to live with her aunt.

The plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) with the court. Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acknowledged that the parties' marriage was in an irreparable state and no longer constituted a joyful and everlasting domestic life, per art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life, per art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. 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, it acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

This fatwa states that there are two conflicting opinions regarding divorce (pronouncement of talak). The first is that the pronouncement of talak three times at once is akin to the third talak. This opinion was held by the Companions of the Prophet (Sahaba), the Tabi'in (the next generation), and imams of all four schools (mazhab) of Sunni Islamic thought. The counter opinion is that pronouncement of talak three times at once is only akin to the first of three pronouncements of talak. This opinion was held by Thawus, the Imamiyah school (mazhab) of Shi'a Islamic thought, Ibnu Taimiyah, and Ahlu az-Zahir. The fatwa states that the Committee finds the former opinion to be more sound. It also notes that marriage and divorce is regulated for Muslims in ss 10 and 31 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and ss 14-18 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975.

The fatwa states that efforts must be made to prevent three pronouncements of talak at once occurring again. Moreover, that if state marriage laws are implemented correctly, there will be no more incidents of three pronouncements of talak at once in Indonesia. The fatwa also acknowledges the significance of the role of the religious courts (pengadilan agama) in preventing such incidents occurring in the future.

The parties were married on 8 January 2006 and had two children. After their marriage, they lived in a rental property in Medan for a year. They then moved to the defendant's parents' home for a year, before living in another rental property. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had quarrelled since the beginning of 2007 because the defendant had not worked to meet the parties' domestic financial needs.

In July 2013, problems escalated after the defendant had an extra-marital affair with another woman. This caused the plaintiff to return to her parents' home. The defendant followed suit and returned to his own parents' home as well. The parties had remained separate for the past two years and seven months. Around January 2015, the defendant and his parents attended the plaintiff's parents' home in order for the defendant to orally divorce the plaintiff and draft a statement of divorce.

In acceding to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), the court noted that the parties had breached the mandate contained in arts 33 and 34 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and verse 21 of Al-Rum (The Byzantines) of the Qur'an. Moreover, the plaintiff had proven that the parties' marriage was irreparable, making divorce the only feasible course. 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 on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The first applicant submitted that she had married a man by the name of Drs. Moerdiono on 20 December 1993, pursuant to Islamic norms. According to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, a marriage is lawful if performed in accordance with the respective religion and beliefs of the persons wishing to marry. The first applicant's marriage, however, had not been recorded with the Office of Religious Affairs, as required by art 2(2) of the Law No. 1 of 1974. As a result, the legal status of the first applicant's child (the second applicant) was that the second applicant had been born out of wedlock, per art 43(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974, and therefore only had a civil relationship with his mother and his mother's family. According to Islam, however, the first applicant's child was legitimate (sah) because the applicant was married to the second applicant's father when the second applicant was born meaning the second applicant's lineage with his father must be acknowledged.

The applicant submitted that her constitutional rights and those of the second applicant, as guaranteed by arts 28B(1) and (2), and 28D(1) of the 1945 Constitution, had been repudiated by virtue of art 43(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974.

The court acceded to the applicant's submission regarding art 43(1) stating that the article was to be read down as meaning that a child's civil relationship with its father and its father's family depended on scientific proof that the child was a blood relation of the father.

The parties were married on 8 July 2005 and had two children aged eight and six years. At the time of the proceeding, the eight year old child was in the plaintiff's care, while the six year old child was in the care of the defendant. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for seven and a half years but, since December 2013, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had had an extra-marital affair with another woman;
2. was frequently physically and emotionally abusive towards the plaintiff, which had left the plaintiff traumatised; and
3. was irresponsible in maintaining a household, which would lead to regular arguments between the parties.

Problems escalated in January 2016 when the plaintiff simply wished to discuss with the defendant the drafting of the birth certificate of one their children. The plaintiff submitted that, for reasons unknown to her, this caused the defendant to become so enraged that he plunged the plaintiff into a full bathtub four times. The plaintiff then left the defendant and returned to her parents' home where she had remained since. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court acknowledged 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. Accordingly, it acceded to the plaintiff's application 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 an undisclosed date and had one child. At the beginning of the marriage the defendant was unemployed and the plaintiff had to work to cover daily expenses. After eight years, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. would frequently use drugs, sometimes returning home in the middle of the night or the next morning in an intoxicated state;
2. frequently physically assault the plaintiff, even threatening to kill her; and
3. had carried on an extra-marital affair with another woman.

The plaintiff also submitted that since the parties had lived together, the parties' domestic life had become increasingly deleterious due to regular quarrelling. Moreover, that the plaintiff was deeply concerned for her own welfare and that of the parties' child if they remained living with the defendant. Since July 2014, the plaintiff left the parties' home, with their child, to live with her parents in Cirebon. Familial attempts to make the parties reconcile had failed. The plaintiff, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), as well as custody of the parties' child.

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 applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. Furthermore, despite the defendant's absence from court, pursuant to art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it granted the plaintiff custody of the parties' child as the child was still pre-pubescent (belum mumayyiz) and below 12 years of age.