SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 24 August 2008 and had lived with the plaintiff's parents for one year and four months, before moving to a rental property in Takkalao for a year, before then living in their own home in Bojo for a month. The parties also had one child, who was, at the time of the proceeding, in the plaintiff's care. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious initially, but, by October 2008, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant had failed to sufficiently provide for the plaintiff and their child. In December 2010, the parties quarrelled when the plaintiff felt disrespected by the defendant's parents. Then, in January 2011, the plaintiff left the parties' home for her parents' home, feeling she could no longer cope with her treatment at the hands of the defendant and his parents. The parties had remained separated for the following one year and nine months, which had caused the plaintiff to suffer greatly, and to feel that divorce was the only feasible option remaining.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), citing art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, in its assessment that the parties' marriage was no longer happy and joyful, nor peaceful, hopeful and loving. The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, based its decision on the fact that the parties had been apart for two consecutive years and ongoing conflict respectively.

The appellant sought to challenge Decision: 0011/Pdt.G/2014/PA.Bjw of the Bajawa Religious Court (lower court), which had acceded to the respondent's request to revocably divorce the appellant. The lower court had also ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant IDR 300,000 per month for the period of iddah (three-month period after which divorce has been granted), and granted custody of the parties' first child to the respondent. The lower court had also granted the appellant custody of the parties' third and fourth children, as well as ordering the respondent to pay IDR 200,000 per month in child support for the third child until the child had reached adulthood.

The court affirmed the decision of the lower court, but amended the decision in order that the respondent pay to the appellant at least IDR 500,000 per month for the maintenance of the parties third, fourth and fifth children.

The parties were married on 10 November 1999, after which time they had lived in a rental property for 11 years. They had three children. The plaintiff submitted that, as early as 2000, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had:

1. developed a gambling addiction; and
2. never provided the plaintiff with any financial support.

On 23 December 2010, the plaintiff left the defendant, returning to her parents' home. The parties had subsequently remained separated for the two years and four months leading up to the proceeding. The plaintiff, accordingly, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), and that, owing to her own impecuniosity, it exempt her from any court fees.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(a) and (b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(a) and (b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the defendant had developed a gambling addiction, and that the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years. The court also ordered the state to bear the plaintiff's costs.

In this case, the Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the judgment of the district court which divorced a couple, who had married under Islamic law, according to Nebraskan state law. The lower court's judgment granting the husband custody rights and the mother liberal visitation rights were also affirmed. The Court did not engage with Islamic law when rendering its decision.

This government regulation makes several amendments to Government Regulation No. 10 of 1983 on Permission to Marry and Divorce for Civil Servants. The amendments do not effect any significant change but, as the regulation states, are designed to provide greater legal certainty and sense of justice.

In Sarabai, the Bombay High Court upheld "triple talaq" (the pronunciation of talaq, or male-initiated divorce, three times) to be a valid form of irrevocable divorce.

This is the summary of Abouzahr v. Abouzahr 361 N.J.Super. 135.

The Indian Supreme Court held that for talaq (unilateral, male-initiated divorce) to be valid, there must be (1) a reasonable cause and (2) proof of an effort of reconciliation; a simple utterance of talaq, or the presentation of a written statement stating that the respondent had divorced the plaintiff sometime previously, was not sufficient to effect unilateral divorce.

The Bireuen Shari'a Court had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), and ordered that he pay to the appellant monies for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted) and mut'ah (divorce compensation). The Court upheld the decision to grant a divorce, but increased the amount of money payable by the respondent to the appellant to IDR 5 million (mut'ah) and IDR 3 million (iddah) as the initial amount set by the lower court did not cover the appellant's basic needs.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that if ongoing and irreconcilable confict has already been established based on information provided by witnesses, then divorce can be granted.

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court, granting the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra). The Court's only issue with the decision of the lower court was the wording used to declare the appellant and respondent divorced.

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.

This government regulation is concerned with the implementation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. In terms of divorce, art 19 of this Regulation provides the courts with six different reasons to grant an application for divorce, as required by art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that, in the event of a divorce, the consequences of the divorce, based on fairness and justice, must be stipulated in accordance with minimum daily needs. Moreover, in order to guarantee certainty and the future of the parties' children, the obligations of the husband to financially support his children need to be stipulated.

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 bain sugra).

The Court upheld the decision to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce, but noted that as it was the wife who had sought the divorce, she was required to carry out the period of iddah (100-day period after 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, istibra' requires the husband to provide his former wife with financial support, accommodation and clothing during the period of iddah.

Accordingly, the Court also ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent IDR 1.5 million as mut'tah (divorce compensation).

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Sigli Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), but also ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant IDR 1 million in mut'ah (divorce compensation) and IDR 1.5 million in iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted) maintenance.

For all intents and purposes, the Court concurred with the decision of the lower court. It did, however, find cause to amend the decision of the lower court to improve certain formulaic inadequacies it found.

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), only amending the wording of the lower court's verdict slightly.

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court, granting the respondent a divorce, but directed the respondent to cover the costs of the initial hearing (IDR 186,000).

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Lhokseumawe Shari'a Court, which, among other things, had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), but also directed the respondent to pay the appellant IDR 2.5 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce is granted) and IDR 10 million for mut'ah (divorce compensation) and kiswah (clothing) in maintenance. In regards to the revocable divorce, the Court upheld the decision of the lower court. Taking the respondent's regular salary into consideration, however, it increased the amount of maintenance payable by the respondent to IDR 5 million (iddah) and IDR 15 million (mut'ah and kiswah).

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 noted several deficiencies in the judgment of the lower court: notably, that as it was the wife who had sought the divorce, she was required to carry out the period of iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), one of the purposes of which is istibra' (cleansing her womb of her husband's seed). Based on art 41(c) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, istibra' requires the husband to provide his former wife with financial support, accommodation, and clothing during the period of iddah.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the original decision to grant an irrevocable divorce, but ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent IDR 2.1 million for iddah.