SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 3 December 2012 and had one child. Their marriage had been harmonious for the first year, but by January 2014 it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant would frequently:

1. mention the money with which he had provided the plaintiff as though she did not deserve it; and
2. direct profane language at the plaintiff when the parties would argue, as well as threatening to divorce the plaintiff.

Whenever the parties would quarrel, the defendant would leave the parties' home, taking with him all his clothes. In August 2016, the plaintiff answered a call from another woman on the defendant's mobile phone at 2.00am. When the plaintiff inquired with the defendant as to the identity of the woman, the defendant answered dishonestly and then returned to his parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the past two months in the lead up to the proceeding. The plaintiff, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in 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 September 2004 and had four children. Their marriage had been harmonious for the first eight years, but, in October 2012, the defendant, with the plaintiff's permission, left the parties' home to work in Jakarta. At the end of 2013, the defendant returned to Sawahlunto but, for no reason apparent to the plaintiff, chose to live at his parents' home rather than with the plaintiff and their children. The parties had remained separated since. For the past three years, the defendant had also failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial assistance. The plaintiff's attempts to reconcile with the defendant had failed. The plaintiff submitted to the court that the defendant's conduct had repudiated sub-arts (1), (2) and (4) of the parties' marriage vows (taklik talak). The plaintiff, therefore, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i).

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 7 July 2002 in accordance with Islamic shari'a. Having never complied with marriage administrative requirements, the parties did not hold a marriage certificate. The parties also had two children. They had been married happily for 12 years but, by the end of 2014, the parties' marriage had become disharmonious after the respondent carried on an extra-marital affair with another man. In March 2015, the parties separated. The applicant requested that the court ratify the parties' marriage and grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). After the applicant failed to attend the proceeding, however, the court dismissed the application.

The parties were married on 27 June 1991 and had three children. Their marriage had been harmonious for the 19 years but, in 2010, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant would frequently:

1. become suspicious of the plaintiff for no apparent reason; and
2. direct profane language at the plaintiff when the parties would argue.

In July 2016, the defendant again directed profanities at the plaintiff and then drove her to her younger brother's home, before returning to his parents' home himself. The parties had remained separated for the past three months in the lead up to the proceeding. The plaintiff, believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in 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 an undisclosed date and had no children. In June 2015, the defendant left the plaintiff and returned to his parents' home. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's conduct was in violation of figures (2) and (4) of the parties' marriage vows (taklik talak). The plaintiff, therefore, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i).

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the defendant had repudiated the parties' marriage vows. 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 2 March 2015. At the time of their marriage the plaintiff was a widow and the defendant a widower. Their marriage had been harmonious for one year and three months, but by July 2016 it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant could not accept the plaintiff's three children from her first marriage.

In August 2016 problems escalated, resulting in the plaintiff returning to her parents' home. The parties had remained separated for one month and two weeks approaching the proceeding. 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 applicant submitted that the parties were married on 20 July 2007 and had two children. For the first five years their marriage had been harmonious but, by the end of 2012, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. was unsatisfied with the applicant's monthly salary;
2. had forbade the applicant from meeting with his parents and relatives and providing them with money;
3. had frequently directed profanities at the applicant and would request a divorce whenever the parties would quarrel.

On 7 August 2016, when the applicant returned home at around 10.00pm, the respondent directed further profanities at the applicant. The applicant then left the parties' home and returned to his family's home. The parties had remained separated for approximately two months since. The applicant's advice to the respondent had failed to change her behaviour and attitude. Believing the purpose of marriage, that being a peaceful, hopeful and loving family, was no longer attainable, the applicant requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

In her oral response in court, the respondent concurred with the majority of the applicant's submissions. The respondent did not, however, concur with the applicant's submission that the respondent had forbade him from providing his parents with money. Rather, she had only said that his salary was insufficient to meet their own needs as it was. The respondent submitted that her family had attempted to make the parties reconcile but that the applicant and his family had failed to respond to their initial attempts. Furthermore, the respondent submitted that she did not want the applicant to divorce her. If the applicant's request for a divorce were successful, however, the respondent requested that the applicant pay her:

1. IDR 1.2 million per month for three months (IDR 3.6 million) in unpaid spousal maintenance for the time the parties had already been separated;
2. IDR 1 million per month for three months (IDR 3 million) for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted);
3. a gold ring as divorce compensation (mut'ah); and
4. IDR 600,000 per month in child maintenance for their two children until they were adults and independent.

In response, the applicant submitted that he could only afford:

1. IDR 3 million in unpaid spousal maintenance;
2. IDR 900,000 for iddah; and
3. no divorce compensation (mut'ah).

In dismissing the applicant's request, the court justified its decision on the grounds that the parties had already been physically intimate with one another.

The applicant submitted that the parties were married on 7 May 2009. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By 2013, however, it had become disharmonious because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. did not value the applicant as her husband; and
2. frequently accused the applicant of carrying on an extra-marital affair with another woman.

The parties had been separated since 2014 and the applicant requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

In dismissing the applicant's request, the court noted that the respondent had successfully refuted the applicant's second submission. Specifically, witnesses had told the court that they had seen the applicant conducting himself in an inappropriate manner with the respondent's older sister.

The parties were married on 30 March 2002 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome in 2013 because the defendant:

1. was unnecessarily suspicious of the plaintiff, even once trying to burn the plaintiff; and
2. had not provided the plaintiff with financial and emotional support since 2011.

The parties had been separated since 2014, after the defendant left the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that she had lost hope that the parties would reunite, and that the parties' child was in the care of the plaintiff. Accordingly, she 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, pursuant to arts 105(a) and 156(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, also granted the plaintiff custody of the parties' child on the grounds that the child was still below the age of 12 (belum mumayyiz).

The parties were married on 30 March 2002 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome in 2010 because the defendant:

1. had been aggressive towards the plaintiff and the parties' children;
2. had never provided the plaintiff with any attention and affection; and
3. would always drive the plaintiff out of the parties' home when they would argue.

The parties had been separated since June 2014, after the defendant left the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that she had lost hope that the parties would reunite, and that the parties' children were in the care of the plaintiff. Accordingly, she requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

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, pursuant to arts 105(a) and 156(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, also granted the plaintiff custody of the parties' child on the grounds that the child was still below the age of 12 (belum mumayyiz).

The parties were married on 16 June 1997 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome in 2014 when she discovered that the defendant was carrying on an extra-marital affair with another woman.

The parties had been separated since May 2015, after the defendant banished the plaintiff from the parties' home. The plaintiff submitted that she had lost hope that the parties would reunite, and that the parties' children were in the care of the plaintiff. Accordingly, she requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and citing Surah ar-Rum verse 21 of the Qur'an, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court, pursuant to arts 2(b) and (c) and 14 of Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection, and 105 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, also granted the plaintiff custody of the parties' children on the grounds that one of the children was still below the age of 12 (belum mumayyiz), and that it was in the best interests of the other children to remain in the plaintiff's care.

The parties were married on 7 June 2011 and had one child. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. By 2014, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent would:

1. become excessively suspicious of the applicant; and
2. frequently accuse the applicant of carrying on an extra-marital affair.

In February 2015, the parties separated and had remained that way for approximately nine months. The applicant initially requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). After court-sanctioned mediation, however, the applicant withdrew his application for divorce.

The parties were married on 22 October 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome after just one month because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide sufficient financial support to meet the parties' daily domestic needs;
2. had failed to obtain stable employment;
3. had failed to show his appreciation for the plaintiff as his wife, even physically assaulting her on a regular basis; and
4. had a temperamental nature and would often become angry with the plaintiff, often over insignificant matters.

The parties had subsequently been separated since 6 May 2016, after the plaintiff returned to her parents' home no longer able to cope with the defendant's treatment of her. The plaintiff submitted that she had concluded she had no other option but to irrevocably divorce the defendant (talak satu ba'in sughra). The plaintiff also requested that the parties' child remain in her care for the sake of the child's own welfare.

Despite the defendant's absence, 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 court, pursuant to arts 105(a) and 156(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, also granted the plaintiff custody of the parties' children on the grounds that one of the children was still below the age of 12 (belum mumayyiz), and that it was in the best interests of the other children to remain in the plaintiff's care.

The parties were married on 4 November 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome by 2013 because the defendant:

1. rarely returned home;
2. had not disclosed his many debts to the plaintiff; and
3. had been unnecessarily suspicious of the plaintiff for no apparent reason.

The parties had subsequently been separated since 18 March 2015, during which time the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support. The plaintiff submitted that she had concluded she had no other option but to irrevocably divorce the defendant (talak satu ba'in sughro).

Despite the defendant's absence, 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 plaintiff submitted that the parties were married on 1 July 2010 and had one child. The plaintiff also submitted that after six months the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had carried on an extra-marital affair/clandestine marriage with another woman, having also impregnated the other woman;
2. had rarely provided the plaintiff with financial support; and
3. had physically assaulted the plaintiff when she confronted the defendant over his extra-marital affair.

On 16 September 2016, after learning about the defendant's extra-marital affair through a photograph on social media, the plaintiff left the parties' home to live with a family member.

While the plaintiff initially requested that the court grant her a divorce, she then requested that the court allow her to withdraw her application for divorce. The court acceded to the plaintiff's request.

The applicant submitted that the parties were married on 2 November 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff also submitted that after six months the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent:

1. was egotistical and disrespectful towards the applicant;
2. was temperamental whenever the parties would argue; and
3. no longer obeyed the applicant.

On 15 September 2016, after the respondent had rejected the applicant's advice, the parties began to sleep in separate beds.

While the applicant initially requested that the court grant him a divorce, he then requested that the court allow him to withdraw his application as the parties had already reconciled their differences. The court acceded to the plaintiff's request.

The parties were married on 18 August 2006 and had one child. After they married they lived in Ketapang, West Kalimantan. The applicant submitted that, since 2007, he and the respondent had quarrelled regularly because the respondent was often jealous for no apparent reason. Moreover, at the beginning of 2008, the respondent left the matrimonial home unbeknownst to the applicant, and had remained apart from the applicant for three years and six months, never returning. The applicant maintained that the parties had not communicated since, and that their differences were now irreconcilable.

Despite being summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend the proceeding. The court concluded that the parties no longer loved each other as husband and wife, as envisaged in art 77(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Due to ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to 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 plaintiff submitted that, since January 2014, her marriage to the defendant had deteriorated. The parties subsequently separated in October 2014 and remained separated during the time leading up to the proceeding. The plaintiff maintained in her application for divorce that the parties' differences were irreconcilable.

As neither the plaintiff or defendant attended court, despite having been summonsed, the case was dismissed and costs were to be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff submitted that, since November 2010, the parties' marriage had become disharmonious because:

1. the parties quarrelled regularly because the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial support, and the defendant often stayed at his parents' home rather than the parties' home, and in the event of an argument, the defendant would often return to his parents' home for up to one month, after which the parties would then quarrel again;
2. finally, in mid-August 2014, when the plaintiff had rejected the defendant's request that the plaintiff provide him with her work documents, payslip, identity card and family card as financial guarantee for his friend's car, the defendant had become angry and returned to his parents' home with his clothes in tow.

While the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), the court dismissed her application on the grounds that her claim did not contain a legal reason for divorce, as required under art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The parties were married on 30 July 1994. The parties lived together and had three children (ages 19, 16 and 10). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. In October 2012, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The applicant submitted that the respondent had been disobedient, selfish and inconsiderate to his needs. Problems escalated in 2013 when the respondent stopped sleeping in the parties’ bedroom without her husband’s approval. The parties ceased to share any physical intimacy and seldom communicated. The applicant submitted that the respondent had stated that she did not need the applicant and had requested a divorce. The parties’ differences became irreconcilable and the applicant requested the court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj’i).

Before the proceeding, the applicant had failed to make a court costs down payment (panjar biaya perkara), despite being sent a reminder from the court. The court dismissed the case and halted the proceeding in accordance with art 49(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary as amended by Law No. 3 of 2006, in conjunction with Law No. 50 of 2009, and art 2(4) of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Authority, in conjunction with art 57(3) of Law No. 7 of 1989, and ordered the applicant to pay all court costs (IDR 841,000).