SHARIAsource

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 on 4 March 2013 and had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, at least since 2013, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious. This was the result of:

1. a lack of compatibility and constant difference of opinion between the parties;
2. the defendant no longer providing the plaintiff with emotional and financial support; and
3. the defendant's lack of financial transparency.

The parties separated in 2013 and had not been physically intimate for approximately six months leading up to the proceeding. The plaintiff maintained that she had attempted to reconcile her differences with the defendant by talking to him, but to no avail.

Despite being summonsed formally, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding. The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and arts 33 and 34 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, as well as on the grounds of the defendant's repudiation of arts 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage vows (sighat ta'lik thalak), pursuant to art 119 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 26 July 2008 before a marriage registrar from the local Office of Religious Affairs. They then lived with the respondent's parents before moving to a rental property. The parties also had one child.

The applicant submitted, however, that the parties' marriage became quarrelsome from 25 November 2012, after the applicant discovered that the respondent had been having an extra-marital affair with another man. Since that date the parties had remained separated, had shared no physical intimacy, and their child had remained in the applicant's care. The applicant submitted that he did not want the child to be transferred into the care of the respondent given her recent conduct.

The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surat Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to the elucidation of art 37 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, in the respondent's absence, acceded to the plaintiff's application for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The plaintiff submitted that, in May 2009, the parties' had become strained after she relocated to Abu Dhabi a month earlier to work. Upon returning to Indonesia in July that same year, the plaintiff went to live with her elder sibling and since then the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant had physically assaulted her. The defendant, in response, claimed that the plaintiff had never sent him money from Abu Dhabi to assist him in taking care of the parties' two children. The defendant also refuted the plaintiff's submission that the parties' marriage was strained, submitting that he wished the parties would remain married.

Despite mediation between the parties, the plaintiff maintained her request for a divorce. The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, that being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah, warahmah) home, as envisaged in Surat Al-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, pursuant to 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 shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 30 April 2009 and had two children (born 27 March 2001 and 9 August 2005). The plaintiff submitted that the defendant:

1. had married another woman without her permission;
2. had begun living with this other woman; and
3. had verbally abused the plaintiff.

In 2014, the parties separated. On 25 November 2014, the plaintiff filed for divorce on the grounds that the purpose of marriage, as stipulated in art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, could no longer be realised.

The court found that the parties' marriage no longer met the purpose of marriage as envisaged in art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws 1991, and art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974. Moreover, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with 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, and ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 316,00).

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 14 February 2012. They lived together and had one child (aged 2). Initially, the marriage was harmonious. After six months, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that:

1. the defendant had had multiple extra-marital affairs;
2. when the parties quarrelled, the defendant would stop communicating, making the plaintiff angry;
3. the defendant would promise to change for the better but then break such promises and repeat his poor behaviour; and
4. the defendant would verbally abuse the plaintiff and threaten her with divorce when they would argue.

The parties separated and the plaintiff claimed that the circumstances caused the marriage to deteriorate irreparably, and requested that thecCourt grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in shughra).

The court found that the marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, 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, to enable the court to grant her a divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay all court costs (IDR 466,000).

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 16 September 2012 and had two children (aged 14 and 10). The plaintiff submitted that, during the marriage, the defendant:

1. had had an extra-marital affair with a woman named Ami;
2. had married a woman named Diana without the plaintiff’s permission; and
3. often left the house without telling the plaintiff.

The parties divorced in April 2011 and married again on 26 September 2012. Problems escalated and, on 13 September 2013, the plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra).

The court acceded to the plaintiff'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. Accordingly, 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, 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 court costs (IDR 491,000).

The parties were married on 7 May 2005 and had two children. From December 2012 the parties' marriage had become disharmonious as a result of regular quarrelling. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of:

1. the defendant's egotistical tendencies, never validating the plaintiff's opinion; and
2. the defendant being physically and psychologically abusive towards the plaintiff.

Problems escalated and, in August 2013, while remaining under the same roof, the parties had begun to sleep in separate beds. Regardless, the plaintiff believed the marriage was irreparable and that divorce was the only feasible option. As a civil servant, the plaintiff had also already obtained permission to divorce from her superior officer (the Mayor of Kendari).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff’s request, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) 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, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also deferred to expert Islamic legal opinion in Kitab Ia'natul Thalibin Juz III, which dictates that a court is to grant a wife a divorce if she is no longer happy with her husband. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 241,000).

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 28 November 2010 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had deteriorated because the defendant, on 5 February 2011, had left the matrimonial home never to return. The defendant provided the plaintiff with no information as to his whereabouts. The defendant left no money for the plaintiff and, by September 2013, the plaintiff was forced to move to another city to look for work. The plaintiff sought a judicial divorce, pursuant to art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

Despite the defendant being absent from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff’s application. The court acknowledged witness evidence, provided pursuant to art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975. The court found that the parties' marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Therefore, pursuant 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 court 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 516,000).

The parties were married on 19 March 1988 and had four children. They lived on Java for 11 years, before moving to Balikpapan. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. By 2007, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. was dishonest regarding finances;
2. ignored the applicant if he reminded her to pray (sholat);
3. would overreact if the applicant asked her a question; and
4. had obstetric fistula, which prevented her from being physically intimate with the applicant.

The parties separated on 20 May 2013, after the respondent left the matrimonial home. The applicant submitted that he had suffered emotionally as a result and requested the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, 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 was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 17 April 2011, had one child, and had lived with the respondent's parents in Balikpapan. The marriage had always been quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. never thought the applicant provided her with sufficient financial support, despite the applicant providing her with his entire monthly salary; and
2. failed to appreciate the applicant as her husband, frequently arguing with what the applicant would say.

Problems escalated in April 2014, resulting in the parties separating, the applicant leaving the respondent's parents' home for his parents' home. The applicant submitted that he had suffered emotionally as a result and wished to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, 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 was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 10 October 2010 and had two children. The marriage had been harmonious until November 2013, after which time the parties had begun to quarrel frequently. The applicant submitted that this was because the respondent did not appreciate the applicant as her husband, often flouting the applicant's wishes in public, and had failed to care for the applicant when he was unwell. The respondent had also suggested to the applicant that the parties separate for the sake of the children. Accordingly, the applicant sought a divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, 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 was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 25 October 1991 and had three children. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By December 2008, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. would disrespect the applicant;
2. would often leave the parties' home without telling the applicant; and
3. was unsatisfied with what the applicant could provide.

The applicant submitted that deliberative efforts between the parties to reconcile had failed, and that the parties had been separated since 2009. Accordingly, the applicant sought a divorce (talak satu raj'i) from the respondent.

The Court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, 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 was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.