SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 16 August 2002 and had two children. The parties had lived harmoniously until May 2011; however, the plaintiff submitted that she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly since January 2013. This was primarily due to:

1. the defendant confessing before his family to having had an extra-marital affair;
2. continuous irreconcilable arguing and fighting between the parties;
3. the defendant having breached his marriage vows (taklik-talak); and
4. the defendant having not been physically intimate with the plaintiff since September 2013.

Problems escalated in September 2013 resulting in both parties returning to their respective parents' homes. The plaintiff had attempted to reconcile with the defendant by bringing their families together to deliberate, but to no avail. The court was also unsuccessful in its attempts to counsel the plaintiff to reconcile with the defendant. In the defendant's absence, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, 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 30 July 2006 and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. The applicant submitted, however, that, since January 2014, it had become quarrelsome because:

1. the parties no longer agreed on domestic affairs;
2. the respondent often rebelled against the advice of the applicant;
3. the respondent often referred to the applicant's past;
4. there had been a communication breakdown between the parties;
5. the respondent had not been a good wife to the applicant; and
6. the respondent was temperamental and did not want to listen to the applicant's opinions.

These problems escalated in June 2014, causing the parties to separate. After unsuccessfully counselling the applicant to reunite with the respondent, and the respondent failing to attend the proceeding, the court, 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, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 30 May 2011. The applicant submitted that, in around 2012, the parties' home life had become disharmonious. This was primarily the result of the respondent often being angry with the applicant, and if the respondent was angry, she would often leave the home without saying where she was going. Problems escalated in May 2013 when the respondent left the home without saying, taking with her her clothes and some money. After being separated for six months, the applicant concluded that the only solution was to divorce the respondent.

Despite the respondent's absence in court, the court acceded to the applicant's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). Acknowledging that marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, that being a happy family and domestic life, was no longer feasible, it granted the divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to 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 27 June 2007 and had one child. Since January 2010, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had struggled to meet the family's financial needs. The plaintiff also submitted that when the parties quarrelled the defendant would often beat her. Problems escalated in October 2010, resulting in the parties separating. For the next two years and six months, leading up to the divorce proceeding, the defendant failed to provide the plaintiff with any emotional or financial support.

Information provided by witnesses in court corroborated with that of the plaintiff, moving the court to accede to the plaintiff's request for a divorce. 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, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 5 September 2007 but had no children. In August 2012, the parties' marriage became strained when the plaintiff went to Saudi Arabia to work. The plaintiff returned in July 2013, during which time the defendant had provided the plaintiff with no emotional or financial support. Problems escalated in August 2013, resulting in the plaintiff moving to live with her parents. Feeling the parties' marriage was beyond repair, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff had met the evidentiary burden contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it therefore acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage was harmonious until 2008, after which time he and the respondent had begun to quarrel regularly because:

1. the respondent was never satisfied with the amount of financial support provided by the applicant, that being the applicant's entire monthly salary (IDR 1,600,000); and
2. the respondent would often direct unsubstantiated accusations at the applicant that he had had an extra-marital affair.

The applicant claimed that he had sought to reconcile and improve the parties' marriage, but, since October 2008, had felt compelled to leave the matrimonial home and return to his parents' home. Despite having been summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend the proceeding. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds that the parties had been apart for more than two years.

The parties were married on 6 October 1998. They lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ home and had three children (aged 16, 8 and 4). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. In 2011, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant, since 2011, had not provided the plaintiff with financial support, and that the defendant, in 2013, had married another woman without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent. Problems escalated and the defendant left the plaintiff in 2011, after which time communication between the parties ceased. The plaintiff claimed to have suffered as a result of this and requested the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba’in Sughro).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff had met the evidentiary burden contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, and, 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 for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 10 November 1999 and lived with the defendant's parents. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious, but, since the birth of their first child, the plaintiff submitted that it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. frequently directed profane language at the plaintiff;
2. neglected the plaintiff, often leaving her at home alone for no apparent reason; and
3. often had unwarranted suspicions that the plaintiff was having an extra-marital affair.

In October 2011, problems escalated when the plaintiff looked after the defendant's aunt, who was then in Bulukumba Hospital. When the plaintiff returned home, the defendant became angry with the plaintiff, telling her to 'sell herself' ('jual saja dirimu'), causing the parties to argue, and then the defendant to leave the plaintiff. The parties had remained separated since. The parties' families' attempts to make the parties reconcile were in vain, and, as a result, the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option available was divorce.

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.

The parties were married on 14 September 1987 and had four children. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. By August 2004, however, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant had a tendency to become jealous, which often became the source of an argument. In December 2014, when the plaintiff returned home late one night, the defendant accused her of having been in the company of another man. The defendant then struck the plaintiff in the cheek and shoulder. In the beginning of June 2015, the defendant accused the plaintiff of having an extra-marital affair, which the plaintiff denied. In the ensuing argument, the defendant threatened to kill the plaintiff and throw hydrochloric acid in her face. Since then, the parties had slept in separate rooms, and the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support.

Feeling unable to cope any longer with the defendant's behaviour, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra). 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 plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 22 May 1999 and had four children. For the first seven years of their marriage the parties lived in Sinabang, before the plaintiff returned to her parents' home in Kuala Makmur in November 2007. By May 2005, the marriage had become quarrelsome after the defendant had an extra-marital affair. Problems escalated on 14 November 2007 when the plaintiff learned that the defendant had married another woman. The plaintiff submitted that she had returned to her parents' home after the defendant married this other woman because he had no longer shown any care or regard for her and their children. Moreover, for the past eight years the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support. Accordingly, she requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) and, owing to her own impecuniosity, waive any court fees.

The court, pursuant to art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of the parties having been apart for two years or more and ongoing conflict respectively. It also determined that the court fee would be borne by the state.

The parties were married on 22 August 2008 and had two children, who were now in the plaintiff's care. The parties lived in the village of Sembilan before, in March 2014, the plaintiff moved to Ameria Bahagia and the defendant to Damai Makmur. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By March 2010, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had begun to smoke marijuana and gamble, among other illicit (haram) activities.

Problems escalated in March 2015 when it was discovered that the defendant had sold his motorcycle for IDR 3 million to his brother to feed his gambling addiction. When the plaintiff confronted the defendant over this he grabbed a machete, seemingly with the intent to kill the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently moved to her grandfather's home in Ameria Bahagia.

Unable to cope any longer with the defendant's behaviour, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), and, owing to her own impecuniosity, waive any court fees. 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 plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. It also determined that the court fee would be borne by the state.

The parties were married on 20 February 2015, after which they lived with the plaintiff's parents in Madura for six months, before moving to Atambua in September that same year. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had failed to have a child in eight months, and that the marriage was no longer harmonious because the defendant had:

1. failed to provide for the plaintiff financially for the duration of their marriage;
2. frequently beaten the plaintiff;
3. failed to show any responsibility for the plaintiff, instead receiving financial support from the plaintiff's mother.

Problems escalated on 19 September 2015 resulting in the parties separating, the plaintiff moving to her parents' home in Atambua, and the defendant to his parents' home in Mojokerto, East Java. The parties had remained separated since and the plaintiff sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

In the defendant's absence, the Court acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 18 March 2010 and had one child. They had lived with the plaintiff's parents for one year and six months, but by June 2011 the marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant would direct profane language at her, even frequently requesting a divorce. In August 2011, the defendant left the plaintiff without first informing her, and never returned. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had consequently been separated for one year and eight months, which had caused her great emotional suffering. Resigned to the fact that the parties' marriage could not be saved, 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 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, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 4 November 2012, but for the first seven days of their marriage, the parties were not physically intimate. Then, on 11 November 2012, the plaintiff learned that the defendant had married another woman, without the permission of either the plaintiff or a religious court. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had married pursuant to their parents' wishes, rather than their own. The plaintiff subsequently moved from her parents' home, where she had briefly lived with the defendant, to her aunt's home. The parties had remained separated for the five months leading up to the proceeding, and the plaintiff was resigned to the fact that the marriage could not be salvaged. Accordingly, she 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 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, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 27 March 1992 but had no children. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had only been harmonious for the first five years, after which time it had become quarrelsome. This was because of the vulgar and angry manner in which the respondent would behave towards the applicant, especially if the applicant mentioned the prospect of having children. Communal efforts had been implemented in an attempt to make the parties reconcile, but those efforts had been in vain. On 29 April 2012, the parties separated. The applicant submitted that he could no longer cope remaining married to the respondent and, accordingly, requested that the court grant him permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent.

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 parties were married on 26 October 1988 and had three children. After 22 years, however, their marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant frequently:

1. owed others money, unbeknownst to the plaintiff;
2. sold the parties' personal property, unbeknownst to the plaintiff;
3. stole money from the plaintiff; and
4. left the parties' home in the afternoon without saying anything, only to return in the middle of the night.

On 30 December 2010, when the plaintiff inquired with the defendant as to the parties' personal property that the defendant had sold, the defendant had become enraged. As a result, the parties had slept in separate beds for the past five years and three months, during which time they had not been physically intimate, nor had the defendant provided the plaintiff with any financial support. He had, however, provided the parties' children with spending money. The parties attempts to reconcile through consultation and deliberation had been unsuccessful.

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) and of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 14 September 2009 and had an 8 year old child. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had been harmonious until February 2010, after which time it had begun to deteriorate because the defendant rarely provided her with any financial support, rarely worked, and then, in April 2010, left her without any notice. The plaintiff's subsequent attempts to ascertain the whereabouts of the defendant were unsuccessful. Having concluded that the defendant was an irresponsible husband, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 19(f) and (b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and (b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, and that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years.

The parties were married on 4 August 2007 and had lived with the applicant's parents for eight years and seven months. While they had had a child, the child had died at birth on 21 November 2013. The applicant submitted that the marriage had been harmonious until 8 March 2016 when the applicant learned that the respondent was having an extra-marital affair with another man. Problems escalated on 11 March 2016, resulting in the respondent leaving the matrimonial home without notice. For the next month the respondent had not returned home, nor had she contacted the applicant. The applicant submitted that the respondent's conduct constituted neglect of her responsibilities as a wife. The applicant, accordingly, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

After corroborating the applicant's submissions with information provided by two of the applicant's witnesses, the court acceded to the applicant's request, 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, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 1 June 2011 and had one child, a three year old boy who was living with the defendant. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until December 2015, after which time it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. was too subservient to his parents, never heeding the plaintiff's advice; and
2. requested that the plaintiff return money he once sent the plaintiff while he was in Malaysia.

Problems escalated on 25 January 2016, resulting in the plaintiff leaving the defendant's home to live with her parents. While the plaintiff's family advised her to reconcile with the defendant, their efforts were to no avail. The plaintiff, therefore, 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 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 6 October 2009. They had lived with the respondent's parents and had no children. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By May 2014, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent had failed to value the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Moreover, the respondent stopped coming home after she began carrying on an extra-marital affair with a man she had met at the discotheque at which she was employed. Problems escalated in June 2014 resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past two years and familial attempts to make the parties reconcile had failed. The applicant, accordingly, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.