SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 6 August 1998 and had one child (aged 13). The plaintiff submitted that, in March 2013, the defendant had left the plaintiff with no warning and had never returned, providing the plaintiff with no information as to his whereabouts. Left with no financial support from the defendant, the plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The defendant did not attend court despite being summonsed. The court, pursuant to art 39 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. Moreover, the court held that the parties' marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with arts 2 and 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 241,000).

The parties were married on 9 September 2007, had lived happily with the applicant’s parents for four years, and had one child (aged 7). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By September 2011, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The respondent had left the applicant and moved to the respondent’s parents' home without providing the applicant with a forwarding address. The parties had remained separated for three years and four months, during which time they had shared no physical intimacy. The applicant submitted that divorce was the only feasible option and, accordingly, requested that the court grant him a divorce (talak satu raj’i).

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 art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds that the parties had been apart for longer than two consecutive years.

The parties were married on 28 October 2007, after which they had lived with the defendant's parents. The parties also had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, by the end of 2012, the parties' marriage was no longer harmonious because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair with another woman by the name of Yustika. The defendant's duplicity had become a source of tension between the parties, even moving the defendant to express his desire to divorce the plaintiff. By January 2013 both parties had returned to their respective parents' homes. The plaintiff submitted that, since the parties' separation, the defendant had contacted her to inform her that he had remarried. The plaintiff also requested that, owing to her own impecuniosity, the Court waive any procedural court costs.

In the defendant's absence, the Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21. It acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. It also ordered the state to bear the plaintiff's court costs.

The parties were married on 1 October 2010, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents. They had been married for eight years and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage was no longer harmonious, however, because the defendant had physically assaulted her. More specifically, he had burned a cigarette out on her right elbow and thigh because the plaintiff had failed to make the defendant a coffee to his satisfaction. As a result, the parties had been separated since 2011, and the plaintiff requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21, that being an everlasting and joyful, as well as peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) domestic life. It acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(a) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(a) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 8 May 2006 but had no children. The applicant submitted that, since 3 February 2012, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious after the respondent had ignored the applicant's pleas for her to return to Atambua, after having obtained the applicant's permission to return to her parents' home in Ainiba to help plant a rice padi. Accordingly, the applicant sought the Court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'). Owing to his own impecuniosity, the applicant also requested that the state bear his court costs.

The Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21, that being an everlasting and joyful, as well as peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) domestic life. It acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict, per art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The Court also ordered the state to bear the applicant's costs.

The parties were married on 16 November 2012, after which they had lived with the respondent's parents in Agam. The applicant submitted that after three months of marriage the parties had begun to quarrel regularly because the respondent:

1. undervalued the applicant as her husband, often directing profane language at the applicant; and
2. was often unnecessarily jealous because the applicant was a driver, often becoming angry if the applicant returned home late, even refusing to let the applicant enter their home.

Problems escalated in April 2013 after the applicant confronted the respondent for her behaviour. A week after the respondent dismissed the applicant's advice, the applicant left the respondent for his parents' home. The parties had subsequently remained separated for the two years leading up to the proceeding. Accordingly, the applicant requested the Court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

The Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21. It acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per 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 30 April 2014. They had lived at the plaintiff's home for one year and four months but had no children. The plaintiff submitted an application for divorce on the grounds that:

1. since August 2015 the parties had frequently quarrelled; and
2. the cause of their quarrelling was that the defendant had neglected his duty to provide the plaintiff with financial support.

As a result, in August 2015, the defendant had returned to his parents' home and the parties had remained separated for five months.

Acknowledging that the parties' marriage was irreparable, for the purposes of art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. Despite the defendant's absence, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughro) pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and of the Compilation of Islamic Laws on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 3 December 2002 and had one child. They had lived with the defendant's parents for seven years and three months. The plaintiff submitted an application for divorce on the grounds that:

1. since March 2010 the parties had begun to quarrel frequently; and
2. the cause of their quarrelling was that the defendant had turned to gambling, drinking and playing billiards, neglecting his spousal responsibilities in the process.

As a result of the parties' quarrelling, the plaintiff had left the defendant for her parents' home in March 2010 and the parties had remained separated for five years and nine months.

Acknowledging that the parties' marriage was irreparable, for the purposes of art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. Despite the defendant's absence, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughro) pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 29 Feburary 1996 in accordance with Islamic tradition. After marrying they lived in Banda Aceh where they had two children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that since 2007 the parties had quarrelled regularly because the defendant was:

1. not transparent with his finances;
2. inattentive to the plaintiff's biological needs; and
3. very argumentative.

Accordingly, the plaintiff sought a judicial divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra).

The court acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 65 of Law No. 7 of 1989, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 391,000).

This fatwa states that, pursuant to the information collated from nine books on Ahmadiyya, the Indonesian Council of Ulama (Majelis Ulama Indonesia) has determined that Ahmadiyya is a religious congregation (jama'ah) outside of Islam that is misled and misleading. The fatwa acknowledges that Jemaat Ahmadiyah is a recognised legal entity in the jurisdiction of the Republic of Indonesia, but that for Muslims it has resulted in:

1. disquiet, because its teachings are contrary to Islamic teachings;
2. disunity, especially in regards to prayer (shalat), marriage (munakahat), etc; and
3. a threat to state order and security.

In this text,Ibn al-ʿAṭṭār (d. 339/1009) records the legal practices of Cordoban judges, drawing on a range of oriental sources including al-Ṭaḥāwī’s Kitāb al-Shurūṭ al-kabīr. In her chapter on imprecatory oaths in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, DelfinaSerrano notes that the chapters on marriage and repudiation are missing from the preserved manuscripts of this important early work, making it difficult to contrast the treatment of liʿānin Cordoban legal texts with that in sources from Toledo.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale (ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of sources and other material used in and related to the book.

The parties were married on 2 October 2003. The applicant had two children from his previous marriage, and the respondent had three from hers. They also had two children of their own. The applicant submitted that the marriage had only been harmonious for a year before it had become quarrelsome. This was because, the applicant maintained, the respondent would become emotional towards the applicant and undervalued him as her husband. For example, if the applicant returned home late, the respondent would become angry and verbally abuse the applicant, in public and behind closed doors. The respondent had also once thrown her slippers and a rock at the applicant while verbally abusing him.

On 6 July 2012, the respondent, having never shown any affection towards the applicant's children from his first marriage, asked the applicant's children to leave the parties' home. As a result, the applicant was forced to find his own children a rental property. On 9 July 2012, during an argument, the applicant orally divorced the respondent, resulting in the parties separating. In requesting the court's permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent, the applicant also submitted that the two children from the parties' marriage be placed in his care as the respondent was not a competent mother.

In response, the respondent submitted that many of the parties' problems were a result of the applicant's gambling addiction. While the respondent did not seek financial compensation for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted) or mut'ah (divorce compensation), she sought custody of the parties' two children, and an order that the applicant pay to her IDR 200,000 per month for child maintenance.

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 court, however, granted custody of the parties' two children to the respondent, and ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 200,000 per month in child maintenance.

The parties were married on 5 May 2007 and had one child. The plaintiff was a divorcee and had a child from her previous marriage. The plaintiff submitted, however, that the parties' marriage had been disharmonious from the beginning because the defendant had:

1. been unemployed up until a year ago and had, therefore, been unable to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial support;
2. frequently pawned the plaintiff's belongings, including her camera, motorcycle, wedding ring, gas stove, and other furniture; and
3. been suspicious of the plaintiff, not allowing her to communicate with her ex-husband with whom she had a child.

The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's suspicions had not dissipated, even after the parties moved to live with the defendant's parents. Rather, the defendant's suspicions increased to such an extent that the defendant forbade the plaintiff from seeing her child from her first marriage. When the parties would quarrel, the defendant often resorted to physical violence, even whipping the plaintiff with a belt and damaging household items. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant's alcohol consumption compounded matters further and that he had even been unnecessarily suspicious of one of the plaintiff's married male customers.

The plaintiff submitted that problems escalated prior to Ramadhan in July 2014, when the defendant had frequently told the plaintiff to leave and that it would be better if the parties divorced ('lebih baik cerai saja'). On 30 September 2014, the plaintiff returned to her parents' home after the defendant ordered her to leave. On 4 October 2014, the plaintiff brought the parties' child to the defendant's home after she received a text message from the defendant making such a request. There the defendant trapped the plaintiff in a room where he strangled her with both hands, leaving the plaintiff powerless and unable to breathe.

Believing that the parties' marriage was damaged irreparably, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra). The court acknowledged that the parties' homelife was no longer harmonious, that the parties had been separated for seven months, and that familial intervention had failed to reconcile the parties' differences. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(1) 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 acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 20 March 1993 at the Office of Religious Affairs in Plupuh, Sragen. After marrying they lived in Sukaramai, Banda Aceh, and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until 18 December 2010, after which the defendant had left the plaintiff and their children for no apparent reason. Despite searching for, as well as inquiring as to the whereabouts of, the defendant, the plaintiff had not been able to locate him. Therefore, the plaintiff sought a judicial divorce from the defendant, as well as custody of the parties' one remaining child still under the age of consent. Owing to her own impecuniosity, the plaintiff also sought dispensation from any court costs.

In the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in shughra), acknowledging that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer feasible. Moreover, that the defendant having left the plaintiff for more than two consecutive years was sufficient reason to grant a divorce, pursuant to art 39(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.

In regards to their child, the court found that while the child remained the joint responsibility of the parties, the plaintiff would be better placed to rear and educate him given his being underage (belum mumayyiz). This also accorded with the requirement contained in art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court emphasised its belief that a mother would be more patient and meticulous in raising the children, and that to separate them from the plaintiff would be incredibly problematic given their age. The court also cited art 59(2) of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights, which acknowledges the rights and needs of children to maintain a personal relationship with their father. Accordingly, it granted the defendant visitation rights, as well as the right to be consulted regarding his children's education and development, as contained in art 26(1) of Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection. The court also acceded to the plaintiff's request that the State bear the costs associated with the proceeding.

The parties were married on 22 October 1997 and had three children. For the first 10 years of their marriage, the parties lived in Padang, but, at the end of 2007, the defendant moved to South Tangerang, Banten, until mid-January 2010, before returning to Padang. The parties' marriage had been harmonious until mid-2007, when it then became quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. admitted to taking the parties' shop title and selling it to another company to pay off debts, unbeknownst to the plaintiff, before then absconding after the plaintiff requested that the defendant and his family come to some resolution following his dishonest conduct;
2. was unaccountable for his own actions;
3. undervalued the plaintiff's children from her first marriage;
4. was dishonest with the plaintiff; and
5. often forbade the plaintiff's daughter from being friends with other boys.

At the beginning of February 2012, the defendant accused the plaintiff's daughter of going out with a boy, leaving the home and calling the daughter telling her to return home. When the plaintiff's daughter disputed the allegations made by the defendant, the defendant became angry and used profane language with her. In mid-February 2012, the defendant left the matrimonial home without informing the plaintiff and moved to a rental property in South Tangerang. Since then the parties had remained separated, during which time the defendant had provided the plaintiff with no financial support for two years and 10 months.

The plaintiff, believing the parties marriage was irreparable, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra). The court acceded to the request, finding sufficient reason to grant a divorce, as required by art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 134 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court, pursuant to art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff a divorce on the grounds of the parties being apart for more than two years, and ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 1 March 2008 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since 21 July 2010, she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly because the defendant:

1. showed a lack of care for the plaintiff and their child;
2. had failed to financially support the plaintiff and their child since 2010;
3. would often leave the house and return in the middle of the night, or not return at all sometimes;
4. was frequently intoxicated.

Problems escalated and, on 22 November 2010, the defendant left the parties' home. The plaintiff believed an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) was the only feasible option available.

Despite being formally summonsed, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the defendant failed to attend court. Regardless, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible, and that the plaintiff had established sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce, as required under art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 65 of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary. It also cited Kitab Ia’natul Thalibin Juz III in support of its decision.

The parties were married on 9 October 2009 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since March 2011, the marriage had begun to deteriorate because the defendant:

1. had not provided the plaintiff with sufficient financial support, only taking care of himself, while neglecting the plaintiff and household, compelling the plaintiff to find work;
2. would always send his parents money, at the expense of the plaintiff and their child; and
3. had questioned the paternity of the parties' child.

Problems escalated and, in February 2012, the defendant left the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that she had suffered emotionally as a result of the defendant's conduct and that the only feasible option remaining was divorce, pursuant to art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

Based on the information before it, including witness statements, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, and Manhaj al-Thullab juz VI. Despite failing to attend the proceeding, the court acknowledged that the defendant had been summonsed officially, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 21 July 1985 and had eight children. The marriage had been harmonious until 2010, when, the plaintiff submitted, it had begun to deteriorate because the defendant:

1. often gambled;
2. often physically assaulted the plaintiff when the parties would argue; and
3. was often dishonest, and also neglected the plaintiff and their children.

In 2014, people often saw the defendant with another woman near the parties' place of residence. Problems escalated in April 2015 when the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had had an extra-marital affair. While the parties remained under the same roof, they now slept in separate beds, as a result. The plaintiff claimed that she had attempted to reconcile with the defendant, but to no avail, and that the suffering caused by the defendant's conduct left her to believe that the only feasible option remaining was divorce, pursuant to art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

Based on the information before it, including witness statements, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, and Manhaj al-Thullab juz VI. Despite failing to attend the proceeding, the court acknowledged that the defendant had been summonsed officially, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 21 February 2002 and had two children. Initially, their marriage had been harmonious. Since April 2013, however, it had deteriorated because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had:

1. never provided her with sufficient financial and emotional support, neglecting her and their family, compelling the plaintiff to work herself;
2. had an extra-marital affair, which the plaintiff had discovered from text messages sent to the defendant's mobile phone, as well as seeing the defendant with another woman; and
3. often left the parties' home for weeks on end to be with this other woman.

In August 2013, after the defendant had left, the plaintiff returned to her parents' home. As a result of the suffering the defendant's conduct had caused the plaintiff, the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option remaining was divorce, pursuant to art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

Based on the information before it, including witness statements, the Court acceded to the plaintiff's application, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, and Manhaj al-Thullab juz VI. Despite failing to attend the proceeding, the Court acknowledged that the defendant had been summonsed officially, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 26 May 1998 and had three children. Initially, their marriage had been harmonious. Since September 2012, however, it had deteriorated because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had:

1. been physically abusive towards the plaintiff;
2. had an extra-marital affair; and
3. secretly married another woman, unbeknownst to the plaintiff.

In February 2013, the plaintiff left the defendant, unable to tolerate his poor attitude, as well as the lack of financial support with which he provided the plaintiff. The plaintiff's attempts to reconcile with the defendant had also been in vain. As a result of the suffering the defendant's conduct had caused the plaintiff, the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option remaining was divorce, pursuant to art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

Based on the information before it, including witness statements, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, and Manhaj al-Thullab juz VI. Despite failing to attend the proceeding, the court acknowledged that the defendant had been summonsed officially, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.