SHARIAsource

In this case, an Iranian couple had a dispute over child custody and the validity and enforceability of an antenuptial agreement which they had contracted in Iran and according to the laws of Iran. The District Court of Appeal of Florida remanded the case for consideration of issues relating to the agreement, and thus did not engage in an analysis of Iranian law and whether the contract concluded was valid.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Kualasimpang Shari'a Court (lower court), which had stipulated as joint assets of the parties a two-storey shophouse, household appliances and furniture, and a debt of IDR 27 million. The lower court also granted the respondent custody of the parties' child, and ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent child maintenance for two children until they became of age.

The Court concurred with the majority of the lower court's judgment, however, it clarified that the joint debt of IDR 27 million should have been categorised as a counterclaim on the part of the appellant.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), as well as custody of the parties' son. The lower court also ordered the appellant to provide the respondent with monthly child maintenance to cover the child's living costs and school fees until the child was of age and independent.

The Court dismissed the appeal, only making minor amendments to the wording of the lower court's judgment.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), as well as custody of the parties' son. The lower court had also ordered the appellant to provide the respondent with monthly child maintenance to cover the child's living costs and school fees until the child was of age and independent.

The Court dismissed the appeal, only making minor amendments to the wording of the lower court's judgment.

The parties were married on 20 October 2013 and had one child. Since April 2014 the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. was unmotivated to seek employment;
2. rarely provided sufficient financial support to meet the parties' domestic needs;
3. frequently directed profane language at the plaintiff; and
4. would leave the parties' home when the parties would quarrel, often for a week at a time.

Problems escalated in July 2014 when the plaintiff sought to provide the defendant with advice on a matter. The defendant left the parties' home and did not return. The parties had consequently been separated for one year and seven months. Believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), as well as custody of the parties' child.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties. Furthermore, the court, pursuant to art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff custody of the parties' child given that the child was 1 year and 11 months old.

After fleeing worn-torn Syria, a married Syrian Sunni couple, a fourteen-year old woman, A, and twenty-one-year old man, H, arrived in Germany. Because A was a minor, Child Protective Services assumed legal guardianship over A, which H subsequently contested. As a result, A and H were allowed to spend weekends together. Child protective services, however, sought to assume full custody over A, thereby prohibiting any further interaction between A and H. The Higher State Court of Bamberg determined that according to Germany’s civil code (BGB) § 1633, stating that a married minor may decide herself where she would like to live and with whom she wants to interact, Child Protective Services may remain the legal guardian of A but cannot control where she lives.

The Bireuen Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), as well as custody of the parties' two children until they had reached mumayyiz (age of discernment) or 12 years of age.

The Court, on the whole, concurred with the lower court's findings. It found, however, that the lower court had erred by failing to specify how much the appellant was to pay the respondent in child maintenance. Indeed, pursuant to arts 105(c) and 156(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the appellant, as the children's father, was obliged to bear their maintenance costs. The Court quantified this as IDR 500,000 per month. It also granted the respondent custody of the parties' children until the children were adults or had reached the age of 21.

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 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.

The appellant was granted a revocable divorce before the Langsa Shari'a Court. In her counterclaim before the lower court, however, the respondent was granted the following: IDR 3 million (iddah); IDR 2 million (mut'ah); custody of the parties' six children; IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance paid by the appellant; and 50 per cent of what the lower court determined to be the parties' joint estate (the appellant being granted the other 50 per cent).

The Court found the judgment of the lower court to be sound, making only slight, inconsequential amendments to the original decision.

The Langsa Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), custody of the parties' three children, and ordered the appellant to pay IDR 500,000 per month in child maintenance until the children were of age and independent.

The Court found no material fault with the decision, accordingly dismissing the appeal. It did, however, order the lower court's registrar to send a copy of the decision to the relevant Office of Religious Affairs.

This Supreme Court pronouncement states that the wife is to receive three-quarters of joint assets, because those joint assets were yielded by the wife, and the husband failed to provide financial support to his wife and child for 11 years.

The parties were married on 8 April 1995 and had two children. Since 1998, the parties had quarrelled. On 9 November 2008, the plaintiff, the parties' daughter, and their maid left the matrimonial home, after being driven out by the defendant. The parties had remained separated since.

In seeking a divorce, the plaintiff also sought from the defendant IDR 2 million per month in back-dated child maintenance, as the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff and their children with any financial support since 1997 (132 months). Furthermore, the plaintiff sought custody of the parties' children, and IDR 5.5 million per month in child support going forward.

The defendant unsuccessfully challenged the Yogyakarta High Religious Court's decision (34/Pdt.G/2009/PTA), the Supreme Court, for all intents and purposes, reaffirming the Yogyakarta Court's decision. The Yogyakarta Court, however, had not acceded to the amounts in financial support sought by the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay to the plaintiff IDR 750,000 per month in child maintenance, until that child reached 21 years of age.

The Bantul Religious Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), as well as custody of the parties' child until she reached 12 years of age (mumayyiz), three-quarters of the parties' joint assets, and ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent IDR 2.75 million per month in child maintenance until the child reached 21 years of age. The appellant sought to challenge that decision on the grounds that:

1. the lower court had concluded the parties frequently quarrelled, despite any evidence thereof;
2. there was confusion as to the status of the second witness produced by the respondent, who was declared to be the respondent's former neighbour;
3. division of the parties' joint assets was incorrectly stipulated;
4. the figure of IDR 2.75 million was unfounded; and
5. witnesses produced by the respondent did not support the respondent's claims.

The court dismissed these objections, except for the appellant's claim that IDR 2.75 million per month in child maintenance was excessive. Taking into consideration the appellant's monthly wage (IDR 1.5 million), it reduced that figure to IDR 750,000.

The court did, however, decide to issue its own judgment as it objected to the respondent's unilateral request to make a bequest to the parties' child of their joint assets, without the appellant's consent.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Blangkejeren Shari'a Court, which granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). The Court also ordered the respondent to pay the following maintenance to the appellant: IDR 2 million (iddah), IDR 1 million (kiswah), IDR 1.5 million (maskan) and IDR 5.5 million (mut'ah).

The Court noted that the lower court had not determined the issue of child custody, as required under art 41(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The Court ordered the respondent to pay the following increased maintenance to the appellant: IDR 9 million (iddah), IDR 3 million (kiswah), IDR 30 million (mut'ah), IDR 2 million per month in child support until the children reach 21 years of age, and IDR 1.5 million per month to cover the children's school fees.

The parties were married on 19 November 2011 and had one child. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. Entering their third year as husband and wife, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant would often leave their home without informing the plaintiff, not return until the middle of the night, without any legitimate excuse, and sometimes return enraged, sometimes even physically harming the plaintiff and their child.

Following Eid al-Fitr (Idul Fitri) in 2014, the parties had begun to sleep in separate beds. On several occasions, the plaintiff had reminded and counselled the defendant to treat his family well. Her advice fell on deaf ears, however, as the defendant's behaviour worsened, resulting in him leaving the plaintiff, and returning to his own parents' home. The plaintiff submitted that, in order to protect the welfare of the parties' child, as well as that of her own, and taking into account that the child was under the age of 12 (mumayyiz), she should, pursuant to art 150 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, be granted custody of the child. Moreover, that the defendant should be ordered to pay to the plaintiff IDR 5 million per month in child maintenance until the child had either reached adulthood or was independent. The plaintiff also submitted that a judicial divorce (talak satu bain sughra) was the only feasible option.

Following deliberations between the court and the plaintiff's legal representation, the plaintiff agreed to temporarily withdraw her application for divorce on the grounds that she was heavily pregnant. Accordingly, despite the defendant's absence from court, the parties remained married. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 261,000).

The Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu), but had granted the appellant custody of the parties' child. As part of the appellant's counterclaim, the lower court also ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant IDR 3 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), IDR 7 million for mut'ah (divorce compensation), kiswah (clothing) and maskan (accommodation), and IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance until the parties' child was of age and independent.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court found that, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, sufficient evidence had been produced to suggest there had been ongoing conflict and disagreement between the parties, meaning any hope of the parties living together harmoniously once again was gone. It did, however, change the amounts payable by the respondent to the appellant to: IDR 5 million for iddah, IDR 7 million for mut'ah (divorce compensation), kiswah (clothing) and maskan (accommodation), and IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance.

The parties were married on 30 March 2002 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome in 2013 because the defendant:

1. was unnecessarily suspicious of the plaintiff, even once trying to burn the plaintiff; and
2. had not provided the plaintiff with financial and emotional support since 2011.

The parties had been separated since 2014, after the defendant left the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that she had lost hope that the parties would reunite, and that the parties' child was in the care of the plaintiff. Accordingly, she 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, pursuant to arts 105(a) and 156(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, also granted the plaintiff custody of the parties' child on the grounds that the child was still below the age of 12 (belum mumayyiz).

The parties were married on 4 May 2009. The plaintiff submitted that since the parties married, she had been invited to live at the defendant's parents' home in Jakarta. While pregnant she was verbally abused and threatened with divorce by the defendant, and, then in December 2009, while heavily pregnant, returned to her parents' home to give birth. After the birth of the child, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to return to the defendant's parents' home with their child and the plaintiff's parents. In August 2012, due to economic concerns, the parties returned to Padang to live with the plaintiff's parents, while the defendant searched for employment (albeit unsuccessfully). In October 2012, following a minor problem, the defendant left the plaintiff and their child and, since then, had not returned to see the plaintiff and their child or to provide financial support for the child.

The court, pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, found that because the defendant had contravened figures 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage contract by not providing the plaintiff with any financial support for three months, and not caring for the plaintiff for more than six months (it had already been nine months), the evidentiary burden for divorce contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage had been met. The court granted the plaintiff a divorce and custody of the parties' child based on the plaintiff paying to the defendant IDR 10,000 (talak satu khul'i).

The parties were married on 10 February 2008 and had two children (the parties' three-year old child was currently in the care of the defendant's parents in Sorong, Papua, while the parties' one-year old child was in the care of the plaintiff). The plaintiff submitted that the parties had not been married long before the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant would consume alcohol excessively, gamble, carry on extra-marital affairs, and come home in the middle of the night. When the parties would argue the defendant would also become physically violent towards the plaintiff.

Problems escalated in mid-May 2010 when the defendant hit the plaintiff with a plank of wood while telling her he was leaving her. The parties had remained separated since.

The plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), that the parties' three-year old child be placed in her custody, and that it order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff:

1. IDR 11 million in spousal maintenance backpayments;
2. IDR 2 million for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted);
3. IDR 1 million as mut'ah (divorce compensation); and
4. IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance.

Purusant 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 on the grounds of ongoing conflict. It also acceded to her request to be granted custody of the parties' two children. Taking into consideration the defendant's income as a tukang ojek (motorcycle taxi driver), it also ordered him to pay to the plaintiff:

1. IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance;
2. IDR 5.5 million in backdated spousal maintenance; and
3. IDR 1.5 million for iddah.

The parties were married on 13 February 2012 and had one child, born on 17 May 2013. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until the end of 2013. After that time, however, it had become quarrelsome because the respondent had been disobedient towards the applicant, would become excessively jealous and suspicious of the applicant, and if the applicant ever counselled the respondent the parties would quarrel. On one such occasion, the applicant orally divorced the respondent, after which time the parties separated.

In response to the applicant’s submissions, the respondent requested IDR 5 million per month in retrospective maintenance (nafkah) back dated to June 2014. The respondent also requested IDR 20 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted) and mut’ah (divorce compensation) in the form of a 24 karat gold bracelet, IDR 10 million for maskan (accommodation), IDR 10 million for kiswah (clothing), custody of the parties' child, IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance, and that the parties' vehicle be seized to prevent the applicant from transferring the ownership thereof. The respondent then withdrew her request regarding the parties' vehicle.

The court acceded to the applicant'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. 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 applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also acknowledged that the applicant's monthly wage was IDR 7 million. Accordingly, he would only be able to afford the following:

1. IDR 5 million for iddah;
2. a 6.6 gram gold ring as mut'ah;
3. IDR 1 million for kiswah; and
4. IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance (the court awarded custody of the parties' child to the respondent).