SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 26 August 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, as early as November 2012, the marriage had deteriorated because the defendant had:

1. been dishonest with his finances insofar as he had saved a portion of his income for another woman; and
2. had an extra-marital affair with another woman.

Problems escalated and, on 16 December 2012, the defendant orally divorced (pronounced talak) the plaintiff before two witnesses, executed a document with the necessary stamp-duty stating as much, and left the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option remaining was judicial 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 12 March 2011 and lived together in the cassation respondent’s parents’ home. They had three children (aged 12, 11 and 7). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious, but by 2003 it had become quarrelsome. The cassation respondent alleged that the cassation applicant would regularly beat and kick her leaving her bruised and swollen, sometimes in front of her parents. The parties eventually separated.

The cassation respondent had successfully requested that the Bireuen Shari'a Court (Decision: 11/Pdt.G/2013/MS-Bir) grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), claiming that the marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

On 17 December 2014, the cassation respondent successfully sought an affirmation of the decision from the Aceh Shari'a Court (Decision: 95/Pdt.G/2013/MS-Aceh).

On 28 January 2014, the cassation applicant lodged a request for cassation, claiming that the lower courts had incorrectly applied the law, that the evidence of the cassation respondent was inadequate, and that the court had not taken into consideration the facts of the case.

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation applicant’s claim, ruling in favour of the cassation respondent, and ordered the cassation applicant to pay court costs (IDR 500,000).

The parties were married on 10 July 2011. By March 2012, however, they had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was a result of:

1. the defendant having had an extra-marital affair, which the plaintiff had discovered through the defendant's mobile phone;
2. the defendant prioritising himself, rather than providing the plaintiff with enough attention, affection and physical intimacy;
3. the defendant's alcohol dependency; and
4. the defendant's bi-sexual tendencies.

In July 2013, the defendant had left the matrimonial home for no apparent reason, and, since then, had failed to provide the plaintiff with any information as to his whereabouts. The plaintiff's inquiries with the defendant's family and friends were to no avail as they knew nothing. The plaintiff alleged that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer attainable.

The court found that the information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions. It noted that it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce in the event mediation was unsuccessful. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, therefore, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the parties an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughro).

The parties were married on 14 February 2012. After marrying, they had lived with the plaintiff's parents for more than a year, before moving to a rental property, where they then lived for one month before separating and returning to their respective parents' homes. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had quarrelled regularly because:

1. the defendant was selfish and frequently angry for no apparent reason;
2. the defendant was aggressive and frequently hit the plaintiff;
3. the defendant frequently directed profane language at the plaintiff; and
4. the parties had already divorced three times.

Problems escalated in October 2013, resulting in the parties separating, where they had remained until the time of the proceeding. Familial efforts to reconcile the parties had proved to be only temporarily successful, and the plaintiff believed the parties' differences were irreconcilable.

Despite 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, and surat Al-rum verse 21, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan warahmah) homelife was no longer feasible. Moreover, that, 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, ongoing conflict between the parties was sufficient reason to grant a divorce.

The parties were married on 24 August 2008 and had one child. They had lived with the respondent's parents for the first six months of their marriage, after which they separated, the applicant moving back to his own parents' home. The applicant submitted that the marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the respondent's family would frequently criticise the applicant, calling him impotent;
2. the respondent would frequently communicate with her ex-boyfriends, despite the applicant asking her not to do so; and
3. the respondent would often go out at night for no apparent need, and if the applicant advised her against doing so, the respondent and her family would become angry with the applicant, the respondent even once leaving the applicant for five months, without first informing the applicant.

In February 2009, feeling undervalued and as though he could no longer cope, the applicant left the respondent. The parties had remained separated for the four years and two months leading up to the proceeding, which had caused the applicant great emotional suffering. Familial intervention had failed to make the parties reconcile, and the applicant was resigned to the fact that the marriage could not be salvaged. Accordingly, he sought the court's permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent.

Despite the respondent's absence from court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, 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 applicant's request on the grounds that the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years.

The parties were married on 15 July 2008 and had one child. Since July 2014 the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. had frequently physically assaulted the plaintiff;
2. had parents who would frequently meddle in the parties' domestic affairs;
3. was excessively suspicious of the plaintiff; and
4. would frequently besmirch the plaintiff's good name, telling the parties' neighbours and the plaintiff's colleagues that the plaintiff was difficult to deal with and that she had carried on an extra-marital affair with another man.

Problems escalated in mid-May 2015 when the plaintiff rejected the defendant's accusation that she had had an extra-marital affair with another man. When the defendant threatened the plaintiff with a knife the plaintiff left the parties' home. The parties had remained separated for the seven months leading up to the proceeding. Believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, and without any family members on which to rely or bring the parties to reconcile, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court, pursuant to the Qur'an surah Ar-Rum verse 21, 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 Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 2 December 1971 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had remained happily married for 29 years until 1998, when it became apparent that the defendant had married three other women, unbeknownst to the plaintiff. In 2000, when the defendant returned home to the plaintiff, the plaintiff provided the defendant with an ultimatum: remain with his new wife or return to the plaintiff. The defendant informed the plaintiff that he had no intention of divorcing his other wife, and that if the plaintiff wished to divorce the defendant, he would not object. For the next 10 years, the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff or their children with any financial support, which, the plaintiff submitted, contravened art 34(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 80(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought from the defendant financial maintenance back payments for the past 10 years totalling IDR 180 million.

The plaintiff submitted that, on 18 October 2010, three persons attended the plaintiff's home to inform the plaintiff that the defendant intended to return to the home to renovate and reside on the second storey. Despite the parties' eldest child objecting to the defendant's return, the defendant insisted he was entitled to return to the home as he had built it himself, and that, furthermore, he was entitled to evict everyone living in it if he so chose. As the parties' marriage was no longer 'joyful and enduring', as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, the plaintiff sought a judicial divorce. She also sought to obtain her share of the parties' joint assets, namely the property in question.

The defendant disputed several of the plaintiff's submissions, namely that the defendant had married three other women, unbeknownst to the plaintiff. Rather, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff had provided him with money to annul his marriage to his second wife, that she had frequently invited the defendant to Gorontalo, that the parties had jointly applied for bank credit to increase the capital of their kiosk business, that the plaintiff and other persons had sought the defendant's permission to construct a mosque in front of the home, and that the parties' eldest child and her husband had visited the defendant and his second wife. The defendant conceded he had married for a third time, but only after he divorced his second wife, and that the third marriage only lasted a little under a year. The defendant also maintained that the plaintiff had never made any requests to him for money. Moreover, in 2000, his pension was a mere IDR 664,000 per month, while the plaintiff had ample funds from the parties' kiosk business, as well as from renting out several rooms in the parties' home to other persons.

With regard to the plaintiff being visited by three persons, the defendant maintained they had only done so to inform the plaintiff that the defendant wished to repair the parties' marriage. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff's assertion regarding art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage and the state of the parties' marriage was unfortunate given it did not consider the parties' ages, nor the consequences of divorce. Finally, the defendant requested that the court disregard the plaintiff's claims to the parties' property.

The court acknowledged witness evidence, provided pursuant to art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, that the parties had been separated since 2000, and that the defendant had only visited the parties' property in 2005 and 2009 when two of the parties' children married. Therefore, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court, however, dismissed the plaintiff's claim for financial maintenance back payments, acknowledging the defendant's appeal to the small amount his pension afforded him on a monthly basis. Pursuant to art 35(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, it declared the property a joint asset of the parties and ordered a 50/50 split. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 1,701,000).

The parties were married on 29 March 2007 but had no children. They had begun to quarrel as early as April 2007, after the defendant had reverted to Catholicism, having previously converted to Islam. That same month they separated.

The plaintiff maintained that her attempts to reconcile with the defendant had been in vain, and that the defendant's reversion to Catholicism had caused her great suffering. It followed that 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, as well as on the grounds that the defendant's reversion to Catholicism caused had disharmony in the parties' homelife, 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) and (h) 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 fatwa is a unanimous decision by forty Muslim muftis, affiliated with the Sunni Ittehad Council in Pakistan, declaring honor killing of women as “un-Islamic” or heresy (kuffur) and an “unpardonable sin” (gunah-e-qabir). The decree explicitly states that burning a woman alive, in the name of honor, for marrying a person of their choosing, is heresy and against the commands of Islam. The fatwa quotes a Quranic verse, verse number 232 of Surat al-Baqarah: [translated from the Urdu translation of the verse – as used in the fatwa – into English] “Oh woman’s family, do not say no to women for wanting to marry the husband [of their choice] if the two of them have consented to the marriage.” The fatwa states that Islam is the true guardian of rights of women and that it is imperative upon the leaders of an Islamic nation/government (hukumat) to ensure protection of women’s rights. For that purpose, the government should pass and implement laws that make burning and killing of women an unpardonable crime. The oppression and torture unleashed upon women has no relation to Islam. The fatwa then refers to an example (sunna) of the Prophet Muhammad, as narrated in Sahih-Bukhari: The Prophet (s.a.w.) terminated the marriage contract (nikkah) of a woman who complained to him (s.a.w.) that she did not like the man her father had married her off to. The fatwa condemns the act of burning alive or killing one’s child for marrying someone of their choice and then “appeals” to the parents to focus on the ethical education and upbringing of their children in line with the teachings of Islam; and that the upcoming month of Ramadan will be devoted to raise awareness about women’s rights. Finally, the fatwa states that those who burn women and girls alive should be hanged to death.

The particular newspaper reporting (in Roznama Dunya) on this fatwa includes the names of twenty four clerics who signed the fatwa (the total number of clerics who joined in issuing the fatwa were forty but the newspaper article explicitly mentions just twenty four names).

The parties were married on 29 December 2004, and had two children on 23 September 2004 and 6 November 2010. Their marriage had been harmonious until 2012, when the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The applicant submitted that this was because the respondent:

1. did not carry out her responsibilities as a wife, such as preparing food for the applicant;
2. incorrectly suspected the applicant of having had an extra-marital affair, and would never listen to the applicant's explanations;
3. was excessively jealous of the applicant's family and objected to things such as the applicant providing his parents with money; and
4. whenever the parties would argue, would direct obscenities at the applicant, even in public.

Problems escalated in July 2013 when the respondent, for no apparent reason, ignored the applicant. The argument that ensued caused the respondent to ask the applicant for a divorce, which led the applicant to move to a rental property and the respondent to return to her parents' home. As mediation had failed to make the parties reconcile their differences, the applicant was of the opinion that the marriage was no longer tenable.

The court concurred, citing art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, in finding that the parties' ongoing conflict constituted a sufficient reason to grant the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), as prescribed in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The court, pursuant to art 152 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 5 million, IDR 4.5 million of which was for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted). The court deemed the remaining IDR 500,000 sufficient for mut'ah (divorce compensation), as contained in art 149(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The applicant was also ordered to pay to the respondent IDR 750,000 per month in child maintenance.

The parties married on 18 December 2002 and had one child. Initially, their marriage was harmonious, however, the applicant claimed that the respondent's temperamental nature was the primary reason the parties had begun to quarrel regularly from 1 January 2011. The applicant maintained that the respondent would become angry over the smallest of issues, the cause of which the applicant was often unaware. The applicant also claimed that the respondent had verbally insulted his father in front of the village head.

The respondent was allegedly excessively jealous of the applicant and suspected the applicant was having an extra-marital affair. She had also made the applicant feel that whatever he provided his family (the respondent and their child) was inadequate. The parties' quarrelling caused the applicant to leave the matrimonial home, the applicant believing the marriage to be beyond repair given the lack of respect the respondent had shown him.

Despite having been summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend the proceeding. 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, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 7 May 2011 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that since January 2012, the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was a result of:

1. differing values vis-a-vis domestic affairs, namely the defendant's dishonesty regarding financial affairs; and
2. the defendant often stealing other people's property, causing the plaintiff and her family to have to apologise to the relevant persons.

Problems escalated in March 2012 causing the plaintiff and defendant to separate, with the defendant having lived in rental accommodation for approximately the past two years and five months up until the time of the proceeding.

Despite being summonsed formally, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding. Due to the ongoing conflict between the parties, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra), pursuant to art 39 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 parties were married on 20 November 2011 and had one child. The applicant submitted, however, that, since January 2014, the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was a result of:

1. the respondent often going out at night for no apparent reason and without the applicant's permission; and
2. the respondent ignoring the advice and wishes of the applicant.

Problems escalated in June 2014 when the respondent no longer showed any appreciation for the applicant as the head of the household. This led to the the respondent leaving the matrimonial home with the applicant's blessing. The parties had remained separated for approximately two months leading up to the divorce proceeding. Despite being summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend the proceeding.

Due to the ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 39 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 granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The parties were married on 28 December 2008 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, from September 2013, the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was the result of the defendant's violent and harsh demeanour and behaviour towards the plaintiff and their child, which had an obvious and unfortunate psychological impact on the child. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant had spoken to her in such a manner since they were married, and that the defendant's excessively selfish attitude meant he would never listen to the opinions of others, nor did he ever provide his family with sufficient financial support. At the time of the proceeding, the parties had already been separated for eight months.

Due to the ongoing conflict between the parties, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra), pursuant to art 39 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 parties were married on 20 October 2007. The applicant submitted that he and the respondent had been happily married for six years and four months. From November 2013, however, the marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the respondent had had an extra-marital affair;
2. the respondent no longer executed her domestic responsibilities;
3. the applicant had divorced the respondent three times as a result; and
4. if domestic life were to continue, the respondent would not provide any serenity therein.

Problems escalated in April 2014 when the applicant discovered that the respondent was still having an extra-marital affair with the same man, an affair the applicant had already excused. The applicant had already made an effort to save the marriage, as had both parties' families, but these were in vain. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with 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 parties were married on 28 November 1994. In September 2012 and after 18 years of marriage, however, the defendant left the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that, since June 2004, the marriage had been quarrelsome. This was the result of the defendant becoming angry and easily agitated by the smallest of problems, resulting in his use of profane language and threatening to divorce the plaintiff. In addition, the defendant often resorted to physical violence towards the defendant, slapping and hitting the plaintiff to the extent that the plaintiff had incurred nerve damage to her right eye for which she was still receiving medical treatment.

Since their separation in September 2012, there had been no physical intimacy between the parties, and the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support. The defendant also failed to attend court, despite having been summonsed formally. The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with 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 applicant submitted that, since the parties' marriage on 14 June 2013, he and the respondent had never been physically intimate because the respondent refused, and that even when they slept in the same bed, the respondent would place a doll between them. In addition, the applicant claimed that the respondent did not want to execute her responsibilities as a wife, including cooking and serving food, even when the applicant would do so himself, with the help of the respondent's parents.

In August 2014, the applicant felt he could no longer cope with the respondent's attitude and decided to leave the matrimonial home. Attempts by family to reconcile the parties were to no avail, as was judicial mediation. Moreover, the respondent failed to attend court, despite having been summonsed formally. The court found that ongoing conflict between the parties, 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, was sufficient reason to grant the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The parties were married on 6 March 2012 and had two children. The applicant, however, submitted that, since approximately 2011, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. This was the result of the respondent:

1. showing no appreciation for the applicant as her husband;
2. instructing the applicant to leave their home;
3. directing profane language at the applicant;
4. not wanting to move house when asked by the applicant; and
5. going to an undisclosed location without the applicant's permission.

Problems escalated in December 2011 resulting in the applicant leaving the respondent for two years and six months. The applicant attempted to reconcile with the respondent, but to no avail.

Despite being summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend the proceeding. Regardless, the court found that ongoing conflict between the parties, 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, was sufficient reason to grant the the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The parties were married on 10 June 1975, had eight children, and had lived together harmoniously for seven years, up until 1982, when they started to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of the defendant:

1. often going out at night and returning in the middle of the night, or not at all;
2. rarely being at home, and more often than not spending his time out of the house; and
3. often gambling.

Problems escalated in 2002 when the defendant married another woman, repudiating his marriage with the plaintiff. Despite efforts from both the plaintiff and defendant's families to make the parties reconcile, as well as the court advising the plaintiff against divorce, the court found that ongoing conflict between the parties, 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, was sufficient reason to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (thalak satu bain shughra).

The parties were married on 25 May 2001. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had become disharmonious in 2003 because:

1. the parties had not conceived a child for the first ten years of their marriage, and the respondent had stated she did not want to have the applicant's children, nor continue being his wife;
2. the respondent felt that the applicant never provided enough financially;
3. the respondent often rebutted the applicant's advice and directed profane language at him; and
4. the respondent always accused the applicant of spending the applicant's parents' money.

Problems escalated in April 2003 with the respondent, unbeknownst to the applicant, leaving the matrimonial home as a result. The efforts of both parties' families to reconcile the parties were unsuccessful, and the respondent failed to attend formal mediation proceedings. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu roj'ie) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.