SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 10 September 2007 but had no children. The plaintiff's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry (mahar) had been IDR 2 million and a prayer instrument. Since the beginning of 2008, however, the marriage had been disharmonious, primarily because the defendant would frequently leave the matrimonial home, even for up to one year at a time. On 3 January 2013, the defendant left for Java in search of employment, never to return. While the plaintiff had waited for three years and six months for the defendant to return, realising that the purpose of marriage, as prescribed in Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, had been frustrated, the plaintiff filed an application for a judicial divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court acknowledged that the information provided by the plaintiff's two witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions, and that the defendant had not returned home for over three years. The purpose of marriage, as prescribed in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, that being to create an everlasting and joyful family, was no longer feasible. Pursuant to 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 plaintiff's application on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two years.

The parties were married on 27 December 2006 and had one child. The plaintiff's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry (mahar) had been IDR 200,000 and a prayer instrument. Since the beginning of 2015, however, the marriage had been disharmonious. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant:

1. would regularly become angry with the plaintiff for no apparent reason;
2. would regularly leave the parties' home, unbeknownst to the plaintiff; and
3. rarely provided the plaintiff with financial and emotional support.

On 25 June 2016, problems escalated when the defendant confessed to having had an extra-marital affair. The defendant then left the plaintiff without first informing her, never to return. Realising that the purpose of marriage, as prescribed in Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, had been frustrated, the plaintiff filed an application for a judicial divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra).

The court acknowledged that the information provided by the plaintiff's two witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions, and that the defendant had not returned home, nor had he provided a forwarding address. The purpose of marriage, as prescribed in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, that being to create an everlasting and joyful family, was no longer feasible. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court therefore acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 26 May 2013 and had one child. The plaintiff's older brother had acted as the marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry (mahar) had been the cash value of 3.35 grams of gold. Since 25 July 2014, however, the marriage had been disharmonious. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant left in search of employment, never to return, and without leaving a forwarding address. Realising that the purpose of marriage, as prescribed in Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, had been frustrated, the plaintiff filed an application for a judicial divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra).

The court acknowledged that the information provided by the plaintiff's two witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions, and that the defendant had not returned home, nor had he provided a forwarding address. The purpose of marriage, as prescribed in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, that being to create an everlasting and joyful family, was no longer feasible. 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, the court therefore acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two years, and ongoing conflict.

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.

The parties were married on 26 June 1998 and had two children, both of whom were in the custody of the respondent. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. By June 2000, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. frequently neglected her duties and responsibilities as a wife;
2. was stubborn when counselled by the applicant;
3. frequently opposed the applicant as his wife;
4. had a disharmonious relationship with the applicant's parents and siblings;
5. was excessively jealous and suspicious of the applicant; and
6. frequently uttered the word 'divorce' ('cerai') to the applicant.

The final argument between the parties occurred on 24 December 2016 for reasons which were not apparent to the applicant. The respondent then handed the applicant his clothes and told him to leave the parties' home. The parties had remained apart for the past 10 days, during which time the applicant had sought to reconcile with the respondent, albeit unsuccessfully. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

After receiving counsel from the court, however, the applicant agreed to withdraw his application. The court also acknowledged that the parties had sought to reconcile their differences.

The parties were married on 21 March 2012 and had no children. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for the first eight months. Since August 2013, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. frequently neglected her duties and responsibilities as a wife;
2. frequently left the parties' home for no apparent reason, with no destination in mind, and without the applicant's permission;
3. was frequently stubborn when counselled by the applicant;
4. had accumulated debts unbeknownst to the applicant;
5. had a mother and sibling that frequently meddled in the parties' domestic affairs;
6. was frequently dishonest with the applicant;
7. had uttered the word 'divorce' ('cerai') to the applicant; and
8. had a disharmonious relationship with the applicant's family.

Problems escalated on 25 November 2015 when the applicant suggested that the respondent not leave the applicant's parents' home yet again. The ensuing argument led the applicant to order the respondent to leave his parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the past 13 months. The applicant had made several attempts to reconcile with the respondent, albeit unsuccessfully. The applicant, therefore, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

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 had a clandestine marriage on 4 February 1997 in Bandar Lampung, after which time they had lived in Kalianda for approximately three years, before moving to Kenten. They had three children, all of whom were, at the time of the proceeding, in the care of the defendant. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for 13 years, until April 2015, at which time the defendant had divorced the plaintiff, also in a clandestine manner. On 23 October 2015 the parties remarried, this time registering their marriage with their local Office of Religious Affairs. A week later their marriage became quarrelsome again because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. had financially deceived the plaintiff with regards to a business;
2. would always tell the plaintiff he regretted his decision to remarry, simultaneously ordering the plaintiff to leave the parties' home in front of their children;
3. was frequently angry with plaintiff; and
4. had not, since November 2015, provided the plaintiff with any spending money for household necessities, thereby compelling the plaintiff to work herself.

Problems escalated in November 2015 when the plaintiff requested that the defendant provide her some money. On this occasion, when the defendant became angry, the plaintiff decided that she could no longer cope with the defendant's treatment of her and that divorce was the only option. The parties had, as a result, remained separated for the five months leading up to the proceeding.

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 for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 18 January 1985. They had lived in Central Java for about 20 years before moving to a rental property in Sukajadi until they separated. They had two children and had been married for 25 years. Since 2010, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. would become unnecessarily angry on a regular basis;
2. was temperamental;
3. had frequently physically assaulted the plaintiff;
4. had carried on an extra-marital affair with another woman; and
5. had neglected the plaintiff and failed to provide her with financial support.

In 2015, after yet another argument, the parties decided to separate. They had remained apart for a year at the time of the proceeding. Familial attempts to make the parties reconcile had been unsuccessful and, having concluded that the parties' differences were irreconcilable, 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 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 12 June 2010 and had two children. Since December 2014 the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. had failed to provide financially for the plaintiff and their child;
2. frequently embarrassed the plaintiff on social media;
3. frequently contacted other women on his mobile phone; and
4. frequently said he would marry another woman.

Problems escalated and, on 10 December 2015, the plaintiff decided that she could no longer cope with the defendant's behaviour. After separating from the defendant for the past two months leading up to the proceeding, 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 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 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 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 11 October 2009 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, after two years, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial support;
2. would return home in the middle of the night, without first obtaining the plaintiff's permission;
3. was an alcoholic and a gambler;
4. had carried on an extra-marital affair with another woman;
5. would frequently direct unwarranted accusations at the plaintiff that she was having an extra-marital affair herself;
6. had incurred debts unbeknownst to the plaintiff; and
7. had neglected the plaintiff and the parties' child.

On 16 June 2012, after an argument regarding the defendant's outstanding debts, the defendant left the parties' home. He never returned and ceased all communications with the plaintiff. Familial attempts to bring the parties to reconcile their differences had been unsuccessful and, based on the plaintiff's submissions, the plaintiff was resigned to the fact that an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) was the only feasible option remaining.

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, 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 that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years and ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 22 December 1994. At that time the plaintiff was a virgin and the defendant a bachelor. They had lived in their own home and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for 15 years, after which time it had become quarrelsome because the defendant had:

1. failed to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial support to meet daily needs;
2. frequently gambled and used illicit drugs; and
3. frequently beaten the plaintiff and threatened her with a knife.

On 8 October 2014, the defendant left for Jakarta for two months, during which time he failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. When the plaintiff requested a divorce, the defendant returned to Takengon and threatened the plaintiff with a knife. Since that incident the parties had remained separated (for the past four months). Believing the parties had no other option but divorce, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

After hearing from the plaintiff's witnesses, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. 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, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties. The court also noted accepted evidence from the plaintiff that the defendant had previously been arrested for physically assaulting the plaintiff (domestic violence) on 28 June 2012.

The parties were married on 21 October 2009. Their apparent inability to conceive a child had caused tensions that had led the defendant to accuse the plaintiff of being infertile. As a result of the defendant's accusations, the parties had been separated for the past two years. The defendant had even divorced the plaintiff in writing on 21 October 2015. The plaintiff submitted that all the aforementioned reasons were reason enough for her to request an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

After hearing from the plaintiff's witnesses, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. 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, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 23 January 1986. Before marrying, the applicant was a bachelor and the respondent a virgin. They had lived with the respondent's parents for a year before moving into their own home in Kuala Simpang Ulim. While they had 11 children, their marriage had been quarrelsome after one year. The applicant submitted that this was because the respondent:

1. would ignore his advice;
2. was not a competent homemaker; and
3. when the parties would quarrel, would go quiet, thus making it difficult to resolve the problem.

On 19 April 2010, the parties separated after yet another argument. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had failed and the applicant, accordingly, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The respondent refuted the applicant's submissions, stating that it was the applicant who instigated their arguments, and that she would go quiet in order to prevent arguments. The respondent also stated that if the applicant were to divorce her she would require IDR 50,000 per day for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted).

After corroborating the applicant's submissions with information provided by two of the applicant's witnesses, 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 between the parties. The court also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 500,000 for iddah.

The parties were married on 15 November 2000 and had four children. At the time of the proceeding, the defendant was serving an eight-month prison sentence for having beaten the plaintiff on 25 October 2014. The plaintiff submitted that entering the third year of their marriage, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. This was due to:

1. a difference of opinion over domestic matters;
2. the defendant's insistence on using profane language and physically assaulting the plaintiff when they would argue, resulting in the plaintiff having to see a psychologist; and
3. the defendant having carried on an extra-marital affair with another woman, to whom he had also provided financial assistance.

The parties had been separated, as a result, since November 2014. The plaintiff, therefore, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), and that it order the defendant to provide her with maintenance back-payments.

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, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. It was, therefore, 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 sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The court also cited fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) from Kitab Al Muhadzdzab juz II, page 164, and Kitab l'anatut Thalibin, page 85, both of which state that a husband is to provide maintenance back-payments to his wife in the event he had neglected to provide for her and their children for a period. It distinguished this fiqh, however, on the grounds that the parties had been separated for that time. In regards to the parties' four children, the court ordered that the two children under the age of 12 (belum mumayyiz) remain in the custody of the plaintiff. Accordingly, it ordered the defendant to pay to the plaintiff at least IDR 800,000 per month until the children reach the age of 21.

The parties were married on 30 December 1993 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become disharmonious since the birth of their first child in 1994. Specifically, the defendant had:

1. been irresponsible towards his family; and
2. developed a mental illness.

The parties then separated in February 2015, the defendant returning to his parents' home and from then on failing to provide for the plaintiff and the parties' children financially. The plaintiff submitted that she believed the marriage was beyond repair and that an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) was her only option.

In dismissing the application, however, the court noted that while the plaintiff had produced a witness to corroborate her submissions, that witness' evidence had not been supported by other evidence.

The parties were married on 16 August 2013 and had one child. Their marriage had been harmonious until mid-2015, after which time it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. was unemployed, meaning he was unable to provide for the plaintiff and the parties' child, forcing the plaintiff to rely on her parents for financial support;
2. would frequently leave the parties' home after shalat magrib (sunset prayers), returning the next morning, then spending much of the day in bed; and
3. would frequently direct profane language at the plaintiff.

The plaintiff submitted that whenever the parties would argue, the defendant would resort to slapping, kicking, and strangling the plaintiff. Problems came to a head in May 2016, resulting in the defendant leaving the plaintiff to live with his parents. The parties had remained separated for the past five months. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been unsuccessful and the plaintiff, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Ar-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, regarding the supposed tranquility of marriage.

The parties were married on 12 November 2010 and had one child. Their marriage had been harmonious initially, but by the beginning of 2011 it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. would frequently leave the parties' home without first informing the plaintiff; and
2. would frequently direct profane language at the plaintiff.

The plaintiff submitted that whenever the parties would argue, the defendant would resort to slapping, kicking, and hitting the plaintiff with a plank of wood. Problems came to a head in July 2016, resulting in the defendant leaving the plaintiff to live with his parents. The parties had remained separated for the past four months. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been unsuccessful and the plaintiff, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughro).

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Ar-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, regarding the supposed tranquility of marriage.

The parties were married on 21 August 2000 and had two children. Their marriage had been harmonious for the first seven years, but by the beginning of 2007 it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent had carried on an extra-marital affair with another man on 1 November 2016. When the applicant learned of the respondent's extra-marital affair he left her, returning to live with his parents.

The parties had remained separated for the past month. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been unsuccessful and the applicant, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

Despite the respondent's absence, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Ar-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, regarding the supposed tranquility of marriage.