SHARIAsource

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court), which had dismissed her claim for a divorce from the respondent on the grounds that her reason for divorce was not proven and not based in law, as required under art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The Court considered that confessions made by the respondent, as well as information provided by witnesses, had established that the parties had married on 3 November 2007, but only lived together for approximately four months before separating. They had remained separated for almost two years (23 months). Moreover, the catalyst behind their ongoing quarrelling was that the respondent expected his wife to have sexual intercourse with him up to four times a night, but as someone who was up until recently virginal, the appellant could not cope and the respondent would only return to their home once a week and stay two nights. While separated, the respondent never returned to the appellant, but rather approached the local village head to request their assistance in having the appellant return her dowry (mahar) to the respondent because the appellant no longer wanted to be married to the respondent.

The Court found that the respondent was no longer treating the appellant as his wife in an appropriate and deserving manner, as directed by Surat An-Nisa, verse 19, of the Qur'an. Accordingly, the reason for divorce under art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being ongoing conflict between the parties, had been met.

The Tapaktuan Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), but had also ordered him to pay to the appellant IDR 5.4 million in madhiyah (material support), and IDR 1.8 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted). The appellant was also granted custody of the parties' child.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the lower court in order to compel the respondent to provide her with greater monetary compensation. The Court cited art 149 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, which obligates an ex-husband to provide his ex-wife with mut'ah (divorce compensation), in both object and monetary form, to the best of his means. In doing so, it increased the orders of the lower court in terms of monies payable by the respondent to the appellant to the following:

1. IDR 10.8 million (madhiyah);
2. IDR 1.8 million (mut'ah);
3. IDR 1.8 million (maskan and kiswah - accommodation and clothing); and
4. IDR 500,000 per month (child maintenance).

The Bireuen Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra). The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the lower court's decision, the Court noting that marriage is not just an everyday agreement to live together as husband and wife, but a holy agreement that cannot be measured by the mistakes of one of the parties to it. Like the lower court, the Court in this instance was also convinced the marriage was irreparable and that divorce was the best option for both parties.

The Takengon Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra). The appellant challenged this decision unsuccessfully, the Court finding that the lower court's judgment was accurate and correct. The Court also took the opportunity to note that while the appellant had denied the respondent's accusations, among which it had been proven that the appellant had never accused the respondent of having had an extra-marital affair with the head of the kampung (village), the cause of the quarrelling between the parties was not only evaluated based on the mistakes of one of the parties, and that the parties differences were indeed irreconcilable. Accordingly, a reason at law for divorce had been met.

The Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra). The appellant sought to challenge this decision. The Court, however, found that the lower court was correct to grant the respondent a divorce and, accordingly, affirmed the decision.

The Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), but also ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant IDR 3 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), mut'ah (divorce compensation) and kiswah (clothing).

The Court found the lower court was correct in granting the respondent a divorce. It found, however, the figure of IDR 3 million to be unjust and inadequate and, accordingly, increased the monies payable by the respondent to the appellant to: IDR 2.5 million (iddah); IDR 750,000 (kiswah); IDR 1.75 million (mut'ah) and IDR 500,000 in retrospective financial support, payable monthly since January 2009.

The Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), but placed the parties' four children, including Suci Wulandari binti Sofyan (1 year and 7 months old), in the appellant's custody. The lower court had also stipulated as joint assets of the parties a parcel of land, two motorcycles, several household appliances, and savings held in an account at the Kas Ulee Kareng branch of Bank BPD Aceh under the name of Muyasir.

The appellant challenged the lower court's decision on the grounds that the parcel of land was purchased with the proceeds of selling 100 grams of her own gold, and, therefore, not a joint asset of the parties. The Court, however, found that the only potential evidence to suggest as much was hearsay.

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court, but ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant IDR 3 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), and IDR 3 million in mut'ah (divorce compensation).

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Meulaboh Shari'a Court (lower court), which had dismissed her application for an irrevocable divorce from the respondent.

In upholding the appeal, the Court impugned the lower court's reasoning that because the parties had been physically intimate in May 2010, that they both, therefore, wished to remain married. Indeed, the Court noted that the parties' physical intimacy was based on biological urges, rather than feelings of love.

The Court also noted the respondent's poor conduct insofar as he would often leave the appellant at home alone, without first informing her, to gamble. While he had declared repeatedly he would reform his behaviour, he had continued to gamble. Moreover, the appellant had had an extra-marital affair. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the Court believed a sufficient reason to grant the appellant a divorce had been established.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Bireuen Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in syughra).

The Court dismissed the appeal, however, finding the decision of the lower court to be sound and accurate.

Ibrahim bin Amin passed away on 13 December 2008 in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He was survived by his children and beneficiaries: Djamila binti Ibrahim Amin (first appellant); M. Jamal bin Ibrahim Amin (second appellant); Alkindi bin Ibrahim Amin (third appellant); and Latifah binti Ibrahim Amin (fourth appellant). He stipulated as substitute beneficiaries, the beneficiaries of Anwar bin Ibrahim Amin (deceased).

After considering the appellants' procedural objections to the lower court's decision, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the lower court had conducted the proceeding in accordance with the law.

The Takengon Shari'a Court (lower court) stipulated as the estate of H bin S and his wife D binti P: a coffee plantation of approximately five hectares and a house attached, as well as three other parcels of land. As beneficiaries of the deceased, it stipulated the five parties to the proceeding, the appellant receiving a four-tenths share, the respondents receiving two-tenths each, and the co-respondents one-tenth each.

For all intents and purposes, the Court concurred with the decision of the lower court. It did, however, make slight formulaic amendments to the wording of the lower court's decision.

The appellants sought to challenge the decision of the Takengon Shari'a Court (lower court). For all intents and purposes, the Court dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the decision of the lower court. It did, however, make slight and inconsequential amendments to the wording of the lower court's decision.

The parties were married on 3 May 1985, in accordance with Islamic tradition. They had two children, born in 1986 and 1992. The applicant claimed that, after marrying the respondent, work commitments meant that the parties had had to live separately. The respondent lived with her parents in Padang, while the applicant was always out of town in cities including Medan, Riau, and Jakarta.

The parties' marriage was harmonious for the first 15 years, but, by 2000, it had become quarrelsome. This, the applicant claimed, was due to the respondent's lack of gratitude for the spending money with which he had provided her, even though it was not always as much as the respondent had requested. Constant physical distance between the parties had also taken its toll.

Problems escalated at the beginning of 2003, and the frequency with which the parties would argue left the applicant feeling reluctant to return to the matrimonial home. As a result, the parties had lived separately for approximately the past 10 years and five months, and, in 2013, they decided to separate.

The court noted that its advice to the parties that they reconcile had been to no avail. Moreover, the respondent had no objections to the applicant's request for a divorce. Accordingly, 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 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds that ongoing conflict between the parties.

The plaintiff's claim stated that, after the parties were married on 1 October 2010 before a marriage registry official from the local Office of Religious Affairs, work commitments had necessitated their living apart. The plaintiff worked at the Sungai Garinggiang Public Health Centre, and lived at the Health Centre's service house, while the defendant lived with his parents in Padang. Once every three days the plaintiff returned to her parents' home until the parties separated. The parties had one child.

The plaintiff submitted that, since the beginning of the marriage, she and the defendant had quarrelled continuously. This was because:

1. the defendant did not dedicate enough time to the plaintiff; and
2. the plaintiff had heard from family friends that the defendant had had an extra-marital affair, and, while the defendant had denied the allegation, the plaintiff's own investigation revealed that the defendant had indeed had an affair with his previous girlfriend.

Problems escalated in mid-October 2012, as the defendant was still in contact with his previous girlfriend. While the defendant denied these allegations again, the ensuing argument caused him to leave the plaintiff's parents' home. The parties had remained separated since then, and the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support. In August 2013, the plaintiff was informed by friends of the defendant that the defendant had married his previous girlfriend.

The court noted that its advice to the parties that they reconcile had been to no avail. Moreover, the defendant had no objections to the plaintiff's request for a divorce. Accordingly, the court, 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 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 14 August 2013 before a marriage registry official from the local Office of Religious Affairs. The plaintiff submitted that, from the beginning of their marriage, she and the defendant had quarrelled often. The plaintiff claimed this was due to the defendant's temperamental and unstable nature, his gambling addiction, and his use of profane language, which he would direct at the plaintiff.

Problems escalated on 5 October 2013 when, three days into living together in their rental property, the parties had a major altercation. The defendant telephoned the plaintiff's brother-in-law, but, as he was unable to attend the property, the plaintiff's older sister arrived and suggested that the parties calm down and that the plaintiff return to the plaintiff's parents' home. That evening the defendant texted the plaintiff's brother-in-law saying that he was leaving the rental property, that he had sold the parties' household items, and that he was taking the parties' vehicle. The plaintiff had since attempted to contact the defendant but his mobile phone had been inactive. The plaintiff also did not know the defendant's whereabouts, and, since his departure, the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support. Accordingly, pursuant to the parties' marriage vows, the plaintiff was prepared to pay the agreed sum of money ('iwadh) to divorce the defendant.

The court, pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, found that because the defendant had contravened figures 1, 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage contract, the evidentiary burden for divorce contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage had been met. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce based on the plaintiff paying to the defendant IDR 10,000 (talak satu khul'i).

The plaintiff and defendant were married on 3 September 2007 and had their first and only child on 7 August 2008. Around the same time, however, the parties had begun to quarrel because the plaintiff's parents did not approve of the plaintiff's relationship with the defendant. Their disapproval was based on the defendant misleading them all by saying he had not been married before, when, in actual fact, he had been married and already had a child from his previous marriage. The plaintiff and her parents knew this because the defendant's child from his previous marriage would often come to the parties' home asking for money.

The defendant had left the matrimonial home and the parties had been separated for approximately five years. The defendant would also visit the child he had with the plaintiff at the plaintiff's parents' home for the first four months of the child's life, after which he stopped visiting. The plaintiff did not know of the defendant's whereabouts, and the defendant had failed to provide financially for the plaintiff since their separation. Pursuant to the parties' marriage agreement, the plaintiff was prepared to pay the agreed sum of money ('iwadh) to divorce the defendant.

The court, pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, found that because the defendant had contravened figures 1, 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage contract by leaving for three consecutive years, not providing the plaintiff with any financial support for three months (the defendant had failed to do so for two years), and not caring for the plaintiff for more than six months, the evidentiary burden for divorce contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage had been met. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce based on the plaintiff paying to the defendant IDR 10,000 (talak satu khul'i).

The parties were married on 4 May 2009. The plaintiff submitted that since the parties married, she had been invited to live at the defendant's parents' home in Jakarta. While pregnant she was verbally abused and threatened with divorce by the defendant, and, then in December 2009, while heavily pregnant, returned to her parents' home to give birth. After the birth of the child, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to return to the defendant's parents' home with their child and the plaintiff's parents. In August 2012, due to economic concerns, the parties returned to Padang to live with the plaintiff's parents, while the defendant searched for employment (albeit unsuccessfully). In October 2012, following a minor problem, the defendant left the plaintiff and their child and, since then, had not returned to see the plaintiff and their child or to provide financial support for the child.

The court, pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, found that because the defendant had contravened figures 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage contract by not providing the plaintiff with any financial support for three months, and not caring for the plaintiff for more than six months (it had already been nine months), the evidentiary burden for divorce contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage had been met. The court granted the plaintiff a divorce and custody of the parties' child based on the plaintiff paying to the defendant IDR 10,000 (talak satu khul'i).

The parties were married on 22 June 2012, but, for the duration of their short marriage, had never lived together as husband and wife. Work commitments meant that the defendant lived on a plantation in Riau, while the plaintiff lived at her parents' home in Padang. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been disharmonious from the outset, the defendant showing a general lack of concern for the plaintiff as a husband should for his wife. For instance, three days after their marriage, the defendant left for Riau without taking the plaintiff because he supposedly did not yet have a house there. When the defendant returned to the plaintiff's parents' home for Eid al'Fitr (Idul Fitri) in 2012, he refused to be physically intimate with the plaintiff, and, at the end of January 2013, when the plaintiff visited the defendant, they were only physically intimate twice in one month.

After refusing to be physically intimate with the plaintiff again, the plaintiff returned home to Padang in April 2013, and since May 2013, the defendant had provided the plaintiff with no financial support. Despite the efforts of the plaintiff's parents to intervene and resolve the parties' problems, on 7 August 2013, the defendant effectively handed the plaintiff over to her parents without any legitimate reason. Since then communication between the parties had been severed and they had remained separated for approximately 10 months, leading up to the proceeding.

The court found that the parties' differences were irreconcilable, and, 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, believed ongoing conflict between the parties constituted sufficient grounds to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The parties were married on 6 June 2003, in accordance with Islamic tradition. The plaintiff told the court that, shortly after the parties were married, they quarrelled regularly. This was a result of the defendant's:

1. lack of transparency with the plaintiff in terms of how much money he was earning;
2. lack of care for the plaintiff, including not attending the hospital after she had given birth to their child;
3. lack of care for their children;
4. family meddling in the parties' domestic affairs;
5. having had an extra-marital affair, which the plaintiff confirmed when she saw the defendant giving a lift to another woman on his motorcycle; and
6. having had yet another extra-marital affair, with another woman, which the plaintiff confirmed when the defendant brought the woman to her parents' home.

The plaintiff also submitted that when the parties would quarrel, the defendant would often direct profanities at the plaintiff, and that the defendant had physically assaulted the plaintiff, including punching the plaintiff, causing her cheek to bleed and bruise badly. The defendant had also allegedly pointed a knife at the plaintiff and threatened to kill her if she were to request a divorce.

After the judges counselled the plaintiff with regards to the consequences of divorce and the benefits of remaining married, under Islamic law, the plaintiff chose to withdraw her application for divorce.

The parties were married on 7 March 1997 before a marriage registry official at the local Office of Religious Affairs. The plaintiff submitted that, at the end of 2011, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel often. This was a result of the defendant's gambling addiction, as well as his lack of financial transparency with the plaintiff. On one occasion this lack of transparency had resulted in a pivotal disagreement that left the plaintiff feeling uncomfortable in her relationship with the defendant. While family intervention had previously made the parties reconcile, this disagreement compromised any genuine reconciliation. Problems escalated further in September 2013, when the defendant failed to maintain his end of an agreement with the plaintiff to purchase a vehicle.

The plaintiff, having lost patience with the defendant, left Batam (where the parties were living) and returned home to Padang to her parents' home. Since then the defendant had not asked the plaintiff how she and their children were. On 30 January 2014, the defendant sent to the plaintiff a piece of paper, the contents of which stated that he divorced the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff decided their differences were irreconcilable and sought to divorce the defendant.

The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) on the grounds that ongoing conflict between the parties was a legitimate reason for divorce.