SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 15 January 2005 and had two children. Since August 2011, however, they had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of:

1. the defendant having had an extra-marital affair, which she had discovered based on the contents of certain text messages in the defendant's mobile phone;
2. the defendant having failed to provide the plaintiff with routine financial support; and
3. a debate involving the defendant's family regarding a debt the defendant's older sibling owed to the plaintiff.

Problems escalated on 26 August 2011, resulting in the plaintiff leaving the matrimonial home. In her claim, the plaintiff submitted that the state of the parties' marriage meant that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer feasible. The court noted that, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, it was required to mediate the parties (despite the defendant's absence), 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 shughra).

The parties were married on 7 March 2011 and lived with the plaintiff's parents. From August 2011, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of:

1. the defendant never providing the plaintiff with any financial support from the time of their marriage because the defendant believed the plaintiff had her own salary;
2. the parties having only ever been physically intimate once since they were married; and
3. the defendant prioritising his work meaning he rarely ever came home.

In August 2011, problems escalated and the defendant left the plaintiff. In her claim, the plaintiff submitted that the dire state of the parties' marriage meant that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer feasible. The court held that art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, required there to be a legitimate reason for it to grant the plaintiff a divorce. The court found that ongoing conflict between the parties satisfied this requirement, per 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, and granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro).

The parties were married on 4 April 1998. Since October 2011, however, they had begun to quarrel regularly. The applicant submitted that this was because, for 13 years of marriage, the parties had not been able to conceive a child. Problems had escalated and, in November 2011, the parties separated.

In his claim, the applicant submitted that the dire state of the parties' marriage meant that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer feasible. As a counterclaim, the respondent sought IDR 4.5 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted) and mut'ah (divorce compensation) in the form of a 23 karat gold necklace weighing 5.8 grams.

The court noted the purpose of marriage as contained in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as verse 21 of surat Ar-Ruum in Al-Qur'an. It then went on to find that ongoing conflict between the parties satisfied the legitimate reason requirement to grant a divorce, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, the court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), but ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent her iddah and mut'ah demands.

The parties were married on 8 February 2009. On 17 July 2009 they had their first and only child and, after two years, relocated to Denpasar, Bali. Since July 2010, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was because:

1. the defendant's temperamental nature would often result in discussions turning into arguments where the defendant would slap, hit and shove the plaintiff; and
2. the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with financial or emotional support since March 2011.

Indeed, in March 2011, problems escalated, resulting in the defendant leaving the matrimonial home. The plaintiff asserted that the parties' differences were irreconcilable and that the court should find sufficient reason to grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro), pursuant to Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court concurred, finding that ongoing conflict between the parties satisfied the legitimate reason requirement to grant a divorce, 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 28 July 2001 and had two children. At the beginning of their marriage, they had agreed to live in a home owned by the applicant in Bogor. When the respondent was seven-months pregnant with their first child, however, the parties agreed to move to the respondent's parents' home in Bekasi. Initially, when the parties would have a disagreement, the applicant thought it was fleeting and merely part and parcel of domestic life. The applicant preferred to concede defeat, rather than perpetuate further disagreement and quarrelling. Since their third year of marriage, however, the applicant submitted that the parties quarrelled regularly and were no longer compatible. The applicant submitted that this was due to:

1. a difference of opinion between the parties;
2. the respondent not being able to adopt the lifestyle of the applicant, as required in order for the applicant to earn a living;
3. the respondent not fulfilling the applicant's requests to meet his physical needs while their first child was between the age of 4-18 months;
4. the respondent not fulfilling the applicant's requests to meet his physical needs for 12 months after she was four-months pregnant with their second child;
5. after a while, the applicant himself no longer wanting to be physically intimate with the respondent because he no longer loved her;
6. the applicant having suggested to the respondent after the birth of their first child that they no longer live with the respondent's parents so that they could become more independent, and so that the applicant could feel more comfortable and free to do as he pleased without the respondent's parents present;
7. the applicant finally being able to convince the respondent that they should purchase their own home not too far from her parents' home; and
8. having their own home meant the applicant could invite family and relatives to their home whenever he chose.

The applicant conceded that as the parties' children were under the age of 12 (not yet mumayyiz), they should remain in the custody of the respondent, but that he would provide financial support for their schooling and living expenses. The applicant was also prepared to provide the respondent with IDR 6 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted) and IDR 1 million in mut'ah (divorce compensation). The applicant also specified as joint assets of the parties a house in Bekasi and a 2010 Proton Exora vehicle.

The respondent conceded many of the points of the applicant's claim, but submitted that the applicant had been duplicitous, by engaging commercial sex workers and other women for sex (zina), since 2003. The respondent also submitted that one month into her first pregnancy she had been ordered by her obstetrician to stay in bed for two weeks after she had experienced some bleeding associated with the pregnancy. This had caused her to want to avoid being physically intimate with the applicant, rather than any desire not to value her husband. At the time of giving birth to their first child, the respondent had also experienced trauma and further bleeding, which had continued to haunt her. When the respondent had begun to overcome this physical and psychological trauma, the applicant was no longer interested in being physically intimate with the respondent. Moreover, at the time, the respondent would never have guessed that the applicant was being duplicitous.

The court found that ongoing conflict between the parties satisfied the sufficient reason requirement to grant the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), 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 5 May 2013 and had their only child on 7 September 2013. The plaintiff, however, submitted that the parties had quarrelled regularly since they were married because:

1. the defendant only ever provided the plaintiff with IDR 100,000 per month, and since July 2014, no financial support at all, resulting in the plaintiff having to work, as well as request financial assistance from her parents to meet their domestic needs;
2. the defendant rarely worked, but instead prioritised spending time with his friends rather than the plaintiff and their child;
3. the defendant's parents would meddle in the parties' domestic affairs, and encourage the defendant to leave the plaintiff; and
4. the defendant had not been a good father figure for the parties' child, and had not been responsible for his family, failing to provide them with any love and affection.

Problems escalated in July 2014 when the plaintiff could no longer tolerate the defendant's behaviour. Following an argument, the defendant left the parties' rental property and returned to his parents' home. The parties had remained separate for four months, during which time the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff and their child with any financial support. The plaintiff claimed that she had worked hard to resolve the parties' disputes, even seeking the assistance of the Marriage Preservation, Fostering and Counselling Body (Badan Penasehatan, Pembinaan dan Pelestarian Perkawinan), but problems remained the same.

Initial court-sanctioned mediation failed to make the parties reconcile, but when the defendant provided his verbal response to the plaintiff's allegations in court, the plaintiff agreed to withdraw her application for divorce.

The applicant married the first respondent on 21 May 2006, and the parties had their first and only child on 30 January 2009. Throughout their marriage the parties had never quarrelled and had executed their spousal duties appropriately. On 29 August 2014, however, the applicant married the second respondent, without having the marriage recorded officially (a siri (clandestine) marriage). The marriage was officiated by the second respondent's father, and witnessed by the second respondent's neighbour and the applicant's neighbour. The applicant claimed his relationship with the second respondent prior to marrying her was not in contravention of shari'a, that being that the two respondents were not related, nor was he related to the second respondent; and the second respondent was a divorcee and not engaged to another man. The applicant and second respondent were also expecting their first child, the second respondent being seven months pregnant. The applicant also maintained that he could meet his wives' daily needs, as well as those of their children, given his salary (IDR 2.5 million per month). Furthermore, the applicant maintained that he had been fair to both his wives, the relationship between the two respondents had not been problematic, the applicant had been able to demarcate what constituted the joint assets of he and the first respondent, and the first respondent's parents did not object to his marrying the second respondent.

As all parties had failed to attend court, however, the court dismissed the application, commenting that the parties were not treating the matter with any seriousness.

The parties were married on 29 October 1988 and had two children. Since 2010, however, the parties had quarrelled regularly. The applicant submitted that this was the result of:

1. the respondent having had an extra-marital affair;
2. the respondent not appreciating the applicant as her husband, often finding fault with what the applicant would say; and
3. the parties having lived separately since 2010, during which time they shared no physical intimacy.

Problems escalated in July 2011, resulting in the parties officially separating. Meanwhile, the applicant continued to provide the respondent and their children with financial support (IDR 500,000 per month).

Despite the respondent's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of Presidential Instruction No. 1 of 1991, acceded to the applicant's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

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

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

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

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

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

The parties were married on 22 July 2008. They lived in the plaintiff’s grandmother’s home for five years and had one child (aged 6). Initially, the marriage was harmonious. By 2012, however, they had begun to quarrel regularly. One of the main causes of dispute was which school their child should attend.

Problems escalated in February 2013, and the plaintiff left the defendant and the matrimonial home to live with her parents. The parties remained separated for two years during which time they communicated, but the defendant did not provide the plaintiff with any financial support. In 2015, the plaintiff sought a divorce on the grounds that the parties' differences were irreconcilable. Pre-trial mediation had also proved to be unsuccessful.

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 and art 77(1) and (2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a happy and harmonious home life, was no longer feasible. Therefore, there were sufficient reasons, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 19(f) and (b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and (b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The parties were married on 4 January 1996. They had lived with the plaintiff’s parents for 19 years and had two children (aged 18 and 13). Initially, their marriage was harmonious. By July 2013, however, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant:

1. had had extra-marital affairs, rarely came home, and did not provide her or their family with financial support; and
2. often gambled.

Problems escalated in January 2015 resulting in the parties sleeping in separate beds for two months. The parties continued to communicate, but the defendant did not provide the plaintiff with any financial support. The parties’ attempts to reconcile were also unsuccessful.

The plaintiff sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. In the defendant's absence, the court found that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Surat ar Rum 21 of the Qur'an, and art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, being a joyful and enduring household, was no longer feasible. Therefore, the court, pursuant to art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba’in Sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The plaintiff was ordered to pay court costs (IDR 316,000).

The parties were married on 28 August 2007. They lived together in the plaintiff’s parent’s home for seven years and seven months and had one child (aged 7). Initially, the marriage was harmonious, but, by June 2012, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that:

1. the defendant seldom worked and did not care for the plaintiff or their child, did not reasonably contribute to the marriage, and often physically assaulted the plaintiff when the parties would argue; and
2. the defendant regularly consumed alcohol.

Problems escalated in September 2014, culminating in the parties separating. The parties did not communicate, and the defendant did not provide financial support to the plaintiff. The parties’ attempts to reconcile failed. The plaintiff, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, sought an irrevocable divorce and an exemption from paying court costs owing to her own impecuniosity.

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 on Marriage, and granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba'in Sughro). The court also exempted the plaintiff from paying court costs, shifting that burden to the state via the 2015 Malang Religious Court Budget Implementation Register (DIPA Pengadilan Agama Malang Tahun 2015).

The parties were married on 5 October 1993. They had lived together in the defendant’s parents' home for 19 years and 10 months. The parties had two children (age 20 and 14). Initially the marriage was harmonious, but, by September 2006, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had failed to adequately provide for their family due to his own lack of support and care for his family, not having a steady income, and not wanting to work.

Problems escalated in August 2013 resulting in the plaintiff leaving the defendant to live at her parents' home. The parties lived apart for one year and seven months, during which time they did not communicate and the defendant provided the plaintiff with no financial support.

Reconciliation attempts having failed, the plaintiff, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, sought an irrevocable divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict and the parties' matrimony no longer being harmonious, as stipulated in Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

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 on Marriage. Moreover, pursuant to art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, there were sufficient reasons to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba’in Sughro). The plaintiff was ordered to pay court costs (IDR 316,000).

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 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 applicant had encountered problems registering the birth of her second child due to her marriage certificate (dated 26 September 2001) not including her correct name. Accordingly, she submitted to the court a request for permission to change her name as it appeared on her marriage certificate, as well as a fee exemption. She was married on 26 September 2001 and lived with her husband and two children (aged 12 years, and 3 months).

The court, pursuant to art 33(4) of Decision No. 298 of 2003 of the Minister of Religion on Marriage Records, acceded to the applicant's request based on her producing to the court satisfactory proof of identity.

The parties were married on 14 September 2005. They had lived together in the defendant’s parents' home and had one child (aged 7). The plaintiff submitted that:

1. since the parties had married, the defendant had not provided her with any financial support;
2. economic circumstances had forced the plaintiff, in 2011, to earn a living as a migrant worker in Singapore;
3. while the plaintiff was in Singapore the parties had not communicated; and
4. when the plaintiff returned home in 2013, the defendant had not made any effort to communicate with the plaintiff, despite knowing that the plaintiff was visiting, the plaintiff having to sleep at the plaintiff’s parents' home before returning to Singapore to continue working.

The plaintiff submitted that these circumstances had led to irreconcilable disharmony in the marriage, and requested that the court grant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro).

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(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce on the grounds that the parties had been apart for longer than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 25 June 2006, had lived together in the plaintiff’s parents' home for two years, and had one child (aged 8). Initially, the marriage was harmonious. By June 2007, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had never provided her with financial support, and that the defendant would often leave the plaintiff without any warning or reason. The marriage deteriorated and the defendant moved to his parents' house. The plaintiff claimed that these circumstances had led to irreconcilable disharmony in the marriage, and requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in sughro).

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(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) 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, as well as ongoing conflict.

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 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).