SHARIAsource

The first year of their marriage was harmonious, however, from thereon the parties had begun to quarrel regularly because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. frequently directed profane language towards, and hit, the applicant, even over minor matters; and
2. would become angry if the applicant gave money to his daughter (from a previous marriage).

Problems between the parties escalated and, on 15 May 2012, when the respondent became angry that the applicant was helping his son-in-law renovate his house, the applicant physically assaulted the respondent, and then left her. The parties had remained separated since (for approximately five months). The applicant's family's attempts to make the parties reconcile proved to be in vain. Believing there was no hope for the parties to reunite, the applicant requested that the Court grant him a divorce.

The respondent denied having directed profane language at the applicant, having physically assaulted him, or having been angered by the applicant providing his daughter with money. The respondent also disputed the claim that the applicant helping his son-in-law renovate his house had upset her; rather, she submitted, it was the applicant who was angry and had, therefore, hit the respondent.

The respondent submitted her own counterclaim, noting that the applicant had provided her with a 10 x 10m plantation as a dowry (mahar), and that the parties had, as a joint asset, a 25-acre plantation. The respondent sought that the dowry plantation be returned to the applicant, but that she acquire the 25-acre plantation.

The applicant submitted that the respondent had never enjoyed control of the dowry property, and that the respondent should not be granted ownership of the 25-acre plantation. Moreover, that the parties had other joint assets that the respondent had not disclosed to the Court, which were:

1. pledged land (IDR 10 million);
2. a stilted house, (6m²);
3. 40 tiles (30cm²);
4. installation costs for one kilometre of electricity (IDR 3.2 million);
5. Malaysian gold purchased in 2008, in the form of a 20-gram necklace, and two 7-gram rings (IDR 8 million);
6. one water pump (IDR 500,000); and
7. a hajj deposit in both parties' names.

The respondent submitted that, as the applicant's daughter had often come to the dowry plantation to take some of the plantation's yield, without the respondent's permission, the respondent would return the dowry plantation to the applicant in exchange for the 25-acre plantation. The respondent also submitted that installation costs for a kilometre of electricty were not a joint asset because that money was the result of the respondent selling her property for IDR 3.5 million.

The court acceded to the applicant's request for a divorce, granting a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court noted, however, that, based on witness evidence, as well as the parties' submissions, the respondent had not been a disobedient or defiant wife (nusyuz), and that, because it was the applicant who left the matrimonial home, the respondent was entitled to receive financial maintenance payments from the applicant. The court ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 300,000 per month for three months (IDR 900,000) for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted). In addition, the court ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 300,000 in mut'ah (divorce compensation).

The court dismissed the respondent's claim over the 25-acre plantation, but granted her the dowry plantation on the grounds that it had been in her possession since the parties married. The court concurred with the applicant regarding the seven joint assets, ordering the respondent to provide to the applicant 50 per cent of those assets.

The parties were married on 11 April 2004 and had four children. The applicant submitted that, since 2009, he and the respondent had quarrelled regularly as a result of the applicant's advice to the respondent on how best to conduct herself as a good wife. Problems escalated on 15 April 2014, resulting in the respondent leaving the applicant and their children. The applicant maintained that divorce was the only feasible option.

The respondent responded to the applicant's allegations, stating that it was not just she who had not been a good wife, but the applicant who had not been a good husband, evidenced by his having had an extra-marital affair with another woman. While the respondent had no objections to the applicant's application for divorce, she requested:

1. custody of the parties' four children;
2. that the applicant replace the respondent's jewellery that he had sold;
3. that the applicant repay debts related to the pre-marriage customary dowry; and
4. monetary compensation for iddah (three-month period following divorce having been granted).

The applicant denied having had an extra-marital affair, but rather asserted that the respondent had had an extra-marital affair of her own. The applicant also requested that the court grant custody of the parties' first and second children to the applicant, while granting custody of the parties' third and fourth children to the respondent. The applicant also asserted that, while two pieces of the respondent's jewellery had been sold to pay for instalments on a motorcyle, he was prepared to replace them, as well as to provide the respondent with monetary compensation for iddah, provided it was compatible with his own income, which was sporadic at best. In regards to repaying the dowry, the applicant could not ascertain the amount as it was a family member who had arranged it at the time of the parties' wedding.

Following deliberations, the applicant orally withdrew his application for divorce, while the respondent provided the court with verbal assent to the withdrawal. The court treated both parties' in-court communications as a binding agreement, pursuant to art 1338 of the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata), and ordered the applicant to pay court costs (IDR 381,000).

The applicants were married on 18 October 2013 by Tgk. H. Hanafiah, the then village imam. The second applicant's younger brother had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry (mahar) was five grams of pure gold. Due to a family dispute at the time, the marriage could not be convened at the local Office of Religious Affairs (Kantor Urusan Agama). Accordingly, the applicants requested that the court ratify their marriage retrospectively. Both applicants were eligible for marriage, the second applicant having divorced her previous husband in Lhokseumawe Shari'a Court Decision No. 232 of 2012. The applicants submitted that, while they had already attended the Banda Sakti Office of Religious Affairs to request the issuance of a marriage certificate, the office was precluded from doing so as it could not locate any information relating to their marriage.

The court acceded to the applicants' request, acknowledging that while the parties did not have proof of their marriage in the form of a marriage certificate, they had already married. Moreover, the evidence provided by the witnesses in court did not conflict with the applicants' submissions. Therefore, the applicants' submissions, pursuant to art 7(3)(e) of Indonesian Presidential Instruction No. 1 of 1991 on the Compilation of Islamic Laws, had been established and were grounded in legal reasoning.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Meureudu Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), and ordered the respondent to return half of her dowry (mahar) to the appellant.

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court, but also acknowledged that in his appeal, the appellant had objected to the way in which information provided by one of his witnesses had been appropriated by another party. The Court noted, however, that this was not problematic as the proceeding before the lower court was its own proceeding. Moreover, the Court emphasised that the relationship between the two parties was already at an end, and that to perpetuate the relationship when the parties would continue to quarrel would be worse than granting a divorce. Similarly, to place blame on one of the parties was not what was envisaged by art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, the focus of which was on the actual disintegration of a marriage itself.

The applicant had submitted a marriage ratification request to the court, dated 8 January 2010. The request stated that she and M. Yusuf bin Jafar (deceased, 29 December 2009) were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 10 June 1949, with her older brother Muhammad Yunas acting as her marriage guardian. The marriage was witnessed by two other persons, the names of whom the applicant could not recall. The applicant's dowry was IDR 40.

The applicant required a marriage ratification certificate in order to access her deceased husband's pension, life insurance, and widow's pension. The marriage had never been registered pursuant to current legal provisions. The applicant and her husband, however, had seven children, all of whom were now adults. Moreover, they had never divorced and no one had ever had any objections to their marriage.

In acceding to the applicant's request, the court cited arts 7(2) and (3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, which granted it powers to solemnise a marriage, as well as one that preceded the enactment of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The Court also cited the rule of fiqh contained in Kitab Tuhfah Jilid IV, which mandates the recognition of the marriage of a woman who is of age and sound mind ('aqil baligh).

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 2 October 2004 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had three children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of marriage, which would then enable them to obtain birth certificates for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 15 May 1979 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had five children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of marriage, which would then enable them to obtain birth certificates for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 26 August 1997 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a one-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had three children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 5 June 1990 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a one-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had three children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order to have identity cards issued.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 16 August 1984 by the village imam. The second applicant's sibling had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was IDR 28,000 cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had eight children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order to have identity cards issued.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 1 May 1963 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was IDR 28,000 cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had eight children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order to have identity cards issued.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 5 May 1976 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was IDR 28,000 cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had nine children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order to have identity cards issued.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 5 May 1976 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had five children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order to have identity cards issued.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 9 May 1975 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had six children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain birth certificates for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 24 July 2011 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had a child. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their child.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 21 May 1978 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had eight children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 3 September 1995 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a five-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had five children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 10 July 1992 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had five children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 21 August 1985 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had four children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 15 July 1983 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had six children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.