SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 20 November 2012 before a marriage registrar from the local Office of Religious Affairs. They had no children. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage became quarrelsome since January 2013. This was because the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial contribution to their domestic life. Problems escalated in mid-2013 resulting in the respondent leaving the parties' home without first informing the applicant.

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 s 37 of Law No. 1 of 1974, s 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and s 116(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 of ongoing conflict. The respondent failed to attend court.

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.

The parties were married on 25 February 2005 and had two children. By 2011 they had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of:

1. the defendant having had an extra-marital affair with another woman, and then marrying that woman in 2013, unbeknownst to the plaintiff;
2. the defendant arbitrarily and regularly physically assaulting the plaintiff when they would argue;
3. the defendant having physically assaulted the parties' children;
4. communication between the parties having broken down;
5. the defendant no longer appreciating his parents-in-law; and
6. the plaintiff no longer feeling valued by the defendant as his wife.

The plaintiff sought a divorce on the grounds that the parties' differences were irreconcilable. In her claim for custody of the parties' two children, aged six and one, the plaintiff cited Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 105 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, which both require children under the age of 12 to remain in the custody of the mother. The plaintiff also cited art 41 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 105 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, in support of her claim that the defendant was required to provide the plaintiff with IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance payments.

The court found that, due to ongoing conflict between the parties, 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 to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), pursuant to 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.

The parties were married on 20 February 2013, had one child, and lived with the plaintiff's parents. The parties were married on 21 June 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, for the past year and a half, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant never provided her with any financial support, compelling the plaintiff to rely on her parents financially. The defendant then left the plaintiff and, since their separation a year ago, the parties had not been physically intimate with one another. Moreover, the plaintiff did not know of the defendant's whereabouts. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The parties were married on 20 February 2013, had one child, and lived with the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff submitted that, since March 2015, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had never provided her with any financial support since they were married. Furthermore, the defendant showed insufficient care for his family and often went out on his own. Problems escalated and, on 21 March 2015, the defendant left the plaintiff's parents' home. Since their separation the parties had not been physically intimate with one another. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

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

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

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

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court, however, granted custody of the parties' two children to the respondent, and ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 200,000 per month in child maintenance.

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

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

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

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

Believing that the parties' marriage was damaged irreparably, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra). The court acknowledged that the parties' homelife was no longer harmonious, that the parties had been separated for seven months, and that familial intervention had failed to reconcile the parties' differences. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the The People's Republic of Bangladesh (Gana Prajatantri Bangladesh), based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under Bangladesh's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has no legal status. 

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the State of Israel (Medinat Yisra'el), based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under Israel's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has no legal status. 

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal (Sanghiya Loktantrik Ganatantra Nepal), based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under Nepal's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has no legal status. 

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the Republic of Madagascar (Republique de Madagascar/Repoblikan'i Madagasikara), based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under Madagascar's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has no legal status. 

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the Republic of Mauritius, based on research produced by the Library of Congress. Under Mauritius' Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has some legal status. 

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the Republic of Kenya (Jamhuri ya Kenya), based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under Kenya's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has legal status. 

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the State of Eritrea (Hagere Ertra), based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under Eritrea's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has some legal status. 

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the Republic of The Gambia, based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under Gambia's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has some legal status. 

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the Arab Republic of Egypt (Jumhuriyat Misr al Arabiyah), based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under Egypt's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) is the principal source of legislation. 

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 plaintiff (unemployed, aged 21) and the defendant (unemployed, aged 24) were married on 29 April 2012. They lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ home and had no children. In May 2012 the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had been reluctant to work, and had not fulfilled his obligation to support the plaintiff, resulting in the plaintiff’s parents having to financially support the parties. Problems escalated in June 2012 when the defendant left the plaintiff. The defendant did not disclose his whereabouts and never returned to the plaintiff, providing her with no financial support. The plaintiff claimed to have suffered as a result and requested the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce.

While the plaintiff cooperated with the Court, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding, despite having been summonsed. Due to the defendant's absence, pre-trial mediation, pursuant to s 7(1) of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2008, was not possible. The Court proceeded in the defendant's absence.

The Court found that the marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and that the plaintiff’s reasons for the claim satisfied the requirements of 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.

The Court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) and ordered her to pay all court costs in the amount of IDR 386,000.

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 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 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).