SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 20 October 2000 and had two children. By October 2010, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had been courting another woman. Problems escalated in September 2013, resulting in the parties separating for the two months leading up to the divorce proceeding.

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 parties were married on 26 November 2005. They lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ home and had one child (aged 8). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. In May 2008, however, the defendant left the plaintiff without any notice. Communication between the parties ceased, and the plaintiff's efforts to locate the defendant were unsuccessful.

The plaintiff, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, requested the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughro). The court acceded to the plaintiff's request, acknowledging that the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years.

The parties were married on 5 December 2010 and had one child (born 21 January 2012). The plaintiff submitted that, in October 2011, the defendant had left the plaintiff to find employment and never returned, providing the plaintiff with no subsequent information as to his whereabouts. The plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce for a fee (talak satu khul’i). The court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce, pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds that the defendant had breached figures 1, 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage vows. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay divorce compensation (IDR 10,000) and court costs (IDR 346,000).

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The Court concurred with the decision of the lower court, but also noted the respondent's obligation to carry out iddah (100 day-period after which divorce has been granted), one of the purposes of which is istibra' (cleansing herself of her husband's seed). Based on art 41(c) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 149(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, istibra' requires the husband to provide his former wife with mut'ah (divorce compensation) during the period of iddah. In this instance, the Court ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent IDR 3 million in mut'ah.

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

The Court concurred with the lower court's decision, citing the fact that mediation had failed to reconcile the parties' differences, along with the parties' history of continuous quarrelling and separate living arrangements. The Court found that a sufficient reason for divorce had been established, as required under art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, that being ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 7 March 2011 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had deteriorated due to economic hardship, that being that the defendant had made no effort to obtain employment, was often intoxicated, and therefore unable to contribute financially to meet the parties' domestic needs. In 2013, the parties separated.

On 11 November 2014, the plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sugro) 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.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff’s request, granting an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughro), and ordering the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 401,000).

The parties were married on 20 August 1999 and had one child. The applicant claimed that, since 2003, he and the respondent had quarrelled regularly because the respondent:

1. was not satisfied with the applicant's salary; and
2. did not acknowledge the applicant's suggestions, often opposing the applicant while he was in the process of providing the respondent with advice.

Problems escalated in August 2003, resulting in the respondent leaving the parties' matrimonial home and child. The respondent had never returned nor contacted the applicant since she left. The applicant believed that the marriage was irreparable, making divorce the only feasible option.

Pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds that the parties had been apart for more than 12 years consecutively.

The parties were married on 4 August 1991 and had two children. The marriage became quarrelsome, however, after the plaintiff:

1. learned that the defendant had married another person, unbeknownst to the plaintiff;
2. was pushed to the ground by the defendant, injuring her back and hip; and
3. was threatened at gunpoint by the defendant.

While the plaintiff sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughro), the defendant vehemently denied the plaintiff's allegations, submitting that the parties' homelife was still harmonious and quarrel-free.

The court, however, on the evidence, acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to 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.

The parties were married on 8 July 2004 and had one child. They had lived with the applicant's parents for three years, before moving to a house behind a mobile phone sales counter. The applicant submitted that, by 8 September 2009, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent had left him for another man by the name of Randi. This had caused the applicant to suffer emotionally. Since 8 September 2009 until the time of the proceeding (four years and seven months), the parties had been separated. Accordingly, the applicant sought the court's permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent.

Despite the respondent's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two years.

The court acknowledged that, based on the facts of the preceding interlocutory decision, the parties' marriage had been quarrelsome since April 2015. This was because the respondent had demanded that the applicant spend beyond his means. Moreover, the respondent had often asked the applicant for a divorce. 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 for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 500,000 for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted).

The parties were married on 8 January 2007 and had one child aged 9. Their marriage had been harmonious until 2013, after which it had become quarrelsome because of the defendant's:

1. frequent unwarranted jealousy and accusations that the plaintiff was having an extra-marital affair; and
2. inability to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial allowance.

Problems escalated in July 2015, which resulted in the parties separating. The plaintiff produced two witnesses who provided information that corroborated with her submissions. Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to 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.

The applicant submitted that he and the respondent were married on 10 September 1992 and had three children. The parties' first child was born with a mental handicap. The respondent then gave birth to triplets but only two of the triplets survived. After giving birth to the triplets, the respondent was no longer able to conceive. Having had three sons, however, the applicant wished to have a daughter. After obtaining what the applicant submitted to the court was the respondent's consent in writing to his taking another wife, the applicant now sought the court's permission to do so.

The court dismissed the application, however, when the respondent submitted orally that she had never provided the aforementioned written consent. Accordingly, the court found that the applicant's request had failed to meet the necessary requirements contained in art 5(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 58(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

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 27 April 2008. After marrying, the parties lived happily with the applicant's parents, and had one child. The parties remained happily married until 2009, after which they began to quarrel regularly. The applicant submitted that this was because:

1. the respondent, after giving birth, would become frightened and traumatised if in the presence of the applicant (this remained the case for five years);
2. when the respondent recovered from this condition, if asked about it, she would say she would become scared if she could not please the applicant;
3. in 2010, the applicant relocated to Korea for work but maintained communication with the respondent, but when he returned to Indonesia in 2013, the respondent fell ill again.

As a result, the parties had been separated for the past five years, during which time they had not shared any physical intimacy. The applicant submitted that the marriage was beyond repair and, accordingly, requested that the court grant him a divorce.

The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surah Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to the elucidation of art 37 of Law No. 1 of 1974, 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 acceded to the plaintiff's application for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of having been apart for longer than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 19 June 1992 and had three children (aged 21, 18 and 10). The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had:

1. frequently physically abused her;
2. did not take care of the plaintiff; and
3. had married another woman without the plaintiff’s approval or knowledge.

In September 2013, the defendant left the plaintiff moving the plaintiff to file for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra). While the defendant attended the first hearing, he failed to attend the subsequent hearing, despite being officially summonsed. The parties, pursuant to art 130 of Herziene Inlandsch Reglement, in conjunction with art 82 of Law No. 7 of 1989, as amended by Law No. 3 of 2006 and Law No. 50 of 2009 on Religious Courts, attended court-sanctioned mediation but failed to reconcile their differences. The defendant then agreed to the divorce but objected to the plaintiff's claim that he had physically abused the plaintiff.

The court found that the parties' marriage no longer fulfilled the purpose of marriage, as stipulated in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, 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, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 341,000).

The parties were married on 14 September 2005. They had lived together in the defendant’s parents' home and had one child (aged 7). The plaintiff submitted that:

1. since the parties had married, the defendant had not provided her with any financial support;
2. economic circumstances had forced the plaintiff, in 2011, to earn a living as a migrant worker in Singapore;
3. while the plaintiff was in Singapore the parties had not communicated; and
4. when the plaintiff returned home in 2013, the defendant had not made any effort to communicate with the plaintiff, despite knowing that the plaintiff was visiting, the plaintiff having to sleep at the plaintiff’s parents' home before returning to Singapore to continue working.

The plaintiff submitted that these circumstances had led to irreconcilable disharmony in the marriage, and requested that the court grant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro).

The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surat Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to the elucidation of art 37 of Law No. 1 of 1974, 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 acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce on the grounds that the parties had been apart for longer than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict.

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 parties were married on 8 July 1995 and had three children (born 10 April 1996, 28 March 2002, and 2 February 2007). After they married they lived in Padang for a year, before moving to Jakarta for two years, then to Medan for six months, before finally returning to Padang. The marriage was harmonious for the first 15 years, before it became quarrelsome in mid-2010. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide enough for the plaintiff and their family;
2. was abusive towards the plaintiff's family; and
3. was known to have to have stolen money from people that lived near the parties' home, which reflected badly on the plaintiff.

The plaintiff also submitted that when the parties would argue, the defendant would use inappropriate language with her, even once hitting the plaintiff, causing her plaintiff physical and emotional suffering. Problems escalated on 23 December 2014 when the defendant appropriated IDR 21 million from another person's savings account. This left the plaintiff requesting that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), feeling as though she could no longer sustain a marriage with the defendant.

The court acceded to the request, finding sufficient reason to grant a divorce, as required by art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 134 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it granted the plaintiff a divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 23 June 2006, after which time they had lived in Malang until 2011. From there they had moved to the defendant's parents' home in Sidomulyo, Wonoasri, where they had stayed until 2012, before moving to the plaintiff's parents' home in Banyukambang, Wonoasri until April 2015. The parties had one child (aged 6).

The plaintiff submitted that, since January 2015, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. More specifically, the plaintiff submitted that on one occasion the defendant had returned home from Malang to find that the plaintiff herself had not yet returned home from work. The defendant telephoned the plaintiff to inquire as to her whereabouts, however, the plaintiff's mobile phone was out of battery. When the plaintiff returned home the defendant became angry and hit the plaintiff in front of the parties' child. In April 2015 the defendant left the matrimonial home where he had remained for the nine months leading up to the proceeding. During those nine months the parties had attempted to reconcile their differences but to no avail.

Acknowledging that the parties' marriage was irreparable, for the purposes of art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

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.