SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 21 July 1994 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2008, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly. The defendant's lack of desire to work, as well as his being suspicious of the plaintiff, who had no choice but to work to make ends meet, were all points of contention for the plaintiff.

Problems escalated on 4 September 2014, when the defendant, who was still yet to alter his attitude or behaviour, asked the plaintiff for money to purchase cigarettes. This caused the plaintiff to ask the defendant to leave. The parties had remained separated since.

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.

The parties were married on 24 January 1999, but by the end of 2007 had begun to quarrel often. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant had had several extra-marital affairs (three to her knowledge), as well as the fact that the defendant was far too controlling of the plaintiff, including confiscating the plaintiff's mobile phone. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant had physically assaulted her, leaving her bruised and swollen.

Problems escalated on 30 May 2013, when the plaintiff requested the defendant's permission to return home to Padang (the parties lived in Banten). The defendant granted her permission, but on the way to the airport, the parties began to quarrel and the plaintiff departed for Padang on bad terms with the defendant. After one week of being in Padang, the defendant also returned home to Padang to bring the plaintiff back to Banten with him. The plaintiff, however, refused, noting how poorly the defendant had treated her. Since then the parties had remained separated and, accordingly, the plaintiff sought a divorce from the defendant. The defendant failed to attend court despite having been summonsed formally.

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

Prior to marrying the plaintiff, the defendant had been married to another woman with whom he had a child. He agreed with the plaintiff that he would maintain a relationship with his child, but not with his former wife. The plaintiff submitted, however, that the defendant had breached this agreement by maintaining contact with his former wife. The defendant, the plaintiff submitted, for instance, covered the costs of the rental property his former wife lived in.

The parties had been separated since January 2014, after the defendant left the plaintiff because of ongoing quarrelling regarding his breaking their pre-marriage agreement. Prior to their separation, the plaintiff submitted that the defendant's use of profanities when the parties would argue left her feeling threatened.

While the plaintiff sought a divorce in her statement of claim, the court's counsel persuaded her to withdraw her claim.

The parties were married on 5 July 2012, and had their only child on 14 March 2014. The plaintiff submitted, however, that towards the end of 2013, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly. This was a result of the defendant providing the plaintiff with insufficient spending money to cover household items, the defendant's apathy towards finding work, and the defendant's spending time with his friends and coming home in the middle of the night without any legitimate excuse.

Problems escalated in mid-January 2014 when the defendant texted the plaintiff from Pekanbaru telling her he was going to Dhamasraya to meet someone. When the plaintiff inquired as to why the defendant did not want to return home, he said he was searching for employment there and that, once their child had grown up, he would come and find them. Upon hearing this, the plaintiff decided to seek a divorce from the defendant. For the next year the parties remained separated and not once did the defendant provide the plaintiff with any financial support. The plaintiff felt that reuniting with the defendant would only lead to further quarrelling.

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.

The parties were married on 24 October 2007, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents for approximately four months, before moving to a rental property in Padang for approximately one year. They then moved to the defendant's parents' home before separating.

By 2009, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was largely due to the defendant's temperamental nature, whereby he would project his anger about something else onto the plaintiff, as well as the defendant having had an extra-marital affair. The plaintiff also submitted that whenever the parties argued, the defendant would resort to physical violence, leaving the plaintiff with physical injuries. The defendant would even threaten the plaintiff with sharp objects. The plaintiff's statement of claim also referenced the defendant's alcohol and drug addiction, for which she had unsuccessfully counselled him.

Problems escalated in January 2012 when the plaintiff was arrested after police found narcotics in the matrimonial home. At that point the defendant had already left the plaintiff, but because the plaintiff had not reported the defendant to the police earlier, she was imprisoned for one year. During this time the defendant very rarely went to visit the plaintiff. Upon her release from prison the plaintiff heard that the defendant had remarried but was also serving five years in prison himself for drug-related offences.

The court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) on the grounds that ongoing conflict between the parties meant that there was no hope for them to create a joyful and enduring domestic life, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1947 on Marriage.

After marrying in 2003, the parties had quarrelled regularly since the beginning of 2010. The applicant, a retiree and ten years the respondent's senior, claimed that this was a result of the respondent's lack of care for the applicant once the applicant had retired from work. The applicant also cited as a point of contention the respondent's request for his car and motorcycle, despite the applicant having told the respondent to sell a parcel of land they owned valued at IDR 220 million. The applicant often left the matrimonial home to gather his thoughts and, on one occasion, returned on the condition the respondent's behaviour would change. It did not, however. When the parties would quarrel, the respondent often directed profanities at the applicant, even telling the applicant to divorce her.

Problems escalated on 4 February 2015, when the respondent asked the applicant for his car and motorcycle yet again. The applicant, consequently, moved to his parents' home. The parties did not communicate for the year leading up to the proceeding.

While the applicant had initially lodged an application for divorce, he informed the court that he and the respondent had since reconciled. Accordingly, the court permitted the applicant to withdraw his application.

The parties were married on 15 July 1999 and had their first and only child on 30 August 2000. At the beginning of February 2000, however, before the birth of the child, the defendant sought the plaintiff's approval to go to his parents' home. He would never return to the matrimonial home and the parties would remain separated for the next 14 years and two months. During that extended time the defendant never provided the plaintiff with any financial support, nor did the plaintiff leave behind anything of value that could be sold to provide for the plaintiff and their child. Moreover, the plaintiff's attempts to locate the defendant were unsuccessful. She sought to pay a fee in order that she could divorce (talak satu khul'i) the defendant for breach of their marriage vows (taklik talak) as she found the situation no longer tenable.

The court acknowledged that the defendant's absence had rendered mediation futile. It also noted that the defendant's conduct specifically repudiated their marriage as he had failed to provide the plaintiff with financial support and failed to care for the plaintiff for more than six months (conduct envisaged by figures 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage contract). Accordingly, by virtue of art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the plaintiff was permitted to divorce the plaintiff for breach of their marriage vows by paying a fee ('iwadh) of IDR 10,000.

The parties were married on 27 December 2012 and had their first and only child on 31 January 2013. Six months into their marriage, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the cause of the conflict was the defendant's lack of responsibility as a husband in terms of providing enough financially to meet the parties' daily needs. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant was unmotivated in his employment and that she had to assist to make ends meet. Furthermore, the defendant did not assist the plaintiff in looking after their child while the plaintiff was busy or cooking, and when the parties would argue, the defendant would often leave the matrimonial home, sometimes for up to two weeks at a time.

Problems escalated on 20 December 2013 when the defendant failed to provide enough to meet the parties' domestic needs, and the plaintiff was hesitant to seek assistance from her parents. When the plaintiff sought to discuss this with the defendant, the parties argued and the defendant then left the matrimonial home, unbeknownst to the plaintiff. The defendant never returned, nor did he contact the plaintiff or provide her with financial assistance to help rear their child.

The plaintiff sought to pay the necessary fee ('iwadh) for the court to grant her a divorce from the defendant (talak satu khul'i). The court noted that the defendant's failure to attend court had rendered mediation futile. It also noted that the defendant's conduct specifically repudiated their marriage as he had failed to provide the plaintiff with financial support, and failed to care for the plaintiff for more than six months (conduct envisaged by figures 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage contract). Accordingly, by virtue of art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the plaintiff was permitted to divorce the plaintiff for breach of their marriage vows by paying a fee ('iwadh) of IDR 10,000.

The parties were married on 3 March 2012 and had their first and only child on 1 June 2014. The plaintiff submitted, however, that the parties had quarrelled regularly since December 2012 because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant would take medicinal drugs that would often make him angry. On one occasion, for instance, in mid-February 2013, the plaintiff asked the defendant not to bring his friends home with him. In response, the defendant grabbed the plaintiff by the hair and put his hands around her neck.

Unbeknownst to the plaintiff at the time, the defendant had incurred a IDR 2 million debt with the owner of a travel service after failing to pay the owner at the time the service was rendered. Problems escalated when, on 25 June 2014, the plaintiff's parents inquired with the defendant as to the debt, to which the defendant still would not admit. When the plaintiff's parents asked the parties to resolve the matter on their own time, the defendant had concluded that the plaintiff's parents were telling him to leave their home. The defendant then left the parties' home, and the parties had remained separated for approximately seven months.

At the end of September 2014 the defendant spent the night with another woman, which the plaintiff learned about from the woman in question. Then, on 20 December 2014, the defendant picked up the plaintiff, unbeknownst to her parents, and brought her to his parents' home in Pesisir Selatan, West Sumatra. When the plaintiff's parents came to pick her up, the defendant threatened them with a knife. Believing her marriage to the defendant was no longer tenable, the plaintiff sought a divorce.

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, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) as envisaged by art 119(2)c of the Compilation of Islamic Laws on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 1 March 2008, and had two children on 15 December 2008 and 12 December 2012. The first four years of their marriage were harmonious. At the beginning of 2013, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant:

1. had had an extra-marital affair with a work colleague, which she had surmised from the defendant's behaviour: notably, calling the woman in question late at night; and
2. had showed a lack of care for the plaintiff, often coming home late at night, despite having only worked until 5.00pm.

Each time the parties would argue about the defendant's duplicity, the defendant would promise to leave the woman in question, only to contact her again after a short while.

From January 2014, the defendant would seldom come home to the parties' matrimonial home, instead spending more time at his parents' home. Problems escalated at the end of November 2014 when the plaintiff learned from a friend of the defendant that he had married the woman with whom he was having the affair. The parties remained in the same house briefly, but separated properly not long after. Convinced the marriage was no longer tenable, the plaintiff requested the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

While the defendant failed to attend both court sessions, upon the counsel of the court, the plaintiff chose to withdraw her application for divorce in an attempt to reconcile with the defendant.

The parties were married on 29 December 2004, and had two children on 23 September 2004 and 6 November 2010. Their marriage had been harmonious until 2012, when the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The applicant submitted that this was because the respondent:

1. did not carry out her responsibilities as a wife, such as preparing food for the applicant;
2. incorrectly suspected the applicant of having had an extra-marital affair, and would never listen to the applicant's explanations;
3. was excessively jealous of the applicant's family and objected to things such as the applicant providing his parents with money; and
4. whenever the parties would argue, would direct obscenities at the applicant, even in public.

Problems escalated in July 2013 when the respondent, for no apparent reason, ignored the applicant. The argument that ensued caused the respondent to ask the applicant for a divorce, which led the applicant to move to a rental property and the respondent to return to her parents' home. As mediation had failed to make the parties reconcile their differences, the applicant was of the opinion that the marriage was no longer tenable.

The court concurred, citing art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, in finding that the parties' ongoing conflict constituted a sufficient reason to grant the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), as prescribed in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The court, pursuant to art 152 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 5 million, IDR 4.5 million of which was for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted). The court deemed the remaining IDR 500,000 sufficient for mut'ah (divorce compensation), as contained in art 149(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The applicant was also ordered to pay to the respondent IDR 750,000 per month in child maintenance.

The parties were married on 25 February 2005 and had two children. By 2011 they had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of:

1. the defendant having had an extra-marital affair with another woman, and then marrying that woman in 2013, unbeknownst to the plaintiff;
2. the defendant arbitrarily and regularly physically assaulting the plaintiff when they would argue;
3. the defendant having physically assaulted the parties' children;
4. communication between the parties having broken down;
5. the defendant no longer appreciating his parents-in-law; and
6. the plaintiff no longer feeling valued by the defendant as his wife.

The plaintiff sought a divorce on the grounds that the parties' differences were irreconcilable. In her claim for custody of the parties' two children, aged six and one, the plaintiff cited Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 105 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, which both require children under the age of 12 to remain in the custody of the mother. The plaintiff also cited art 41 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 105 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, in support of her claim that the defendant was required to provide the plaintiff with IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance payments.

The court found that, due to ongoing conflict between the parties, the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a happy and peaceful home life, was no longer feasible. Therefore, there were sufficient reasons to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), 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.

The parties were married on 22 May 2012 and had one child, born on 29 August 2012. By September 2012, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant's parents would meddle in their domestic affairs, the defendant had converted to Christianity, and the defendant was an irresponsible parent in all regards. On 22 May 2013, the defendant had left the matrimonial home for no apparent reason, and, since then, had failed to provide the plaintiff with any information as to his whereabouts. The plaintiff's inquiries with the defendant's family and friends were to no avail as they knew nothing. The plaintiff submitted to the court that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer attainable.

The court found that information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's claim. It noted it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce in the event mediation was unsuccessful. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, pursuant to 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 (talak satu ba'in shughro).

The parties were married on 20 August 1995 and had three children. By 2012, however, they had started to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff alleged this was the result of the defendant:

1. having had an extra-marital affair with another woman in 2012, for which the plaintiff had forgiven the defendant, but then repeating his duplicitous behaviour in 2013;
2. having not held down a permanent job, meaning the family's daily needs were often not met;
3. having physically assaulted the plaintiff, for instance, punching her in the head; and
4. often uttering the word 'divorce' when the parties would argue.

Problems escalated in 2014, resulting in the plaintiff leaving the matrimonial home. While the plaintiff initially requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra), upon receiving counsel from the court, the plaintiff withdrew her case and sought to reconcile with the defendant.

The parties were married on 4 November 2012 and had their first and only child on 5 April 2014. Since February 2013, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff alleged that this was primarily the result of the defendant misleading the plaintiff's parents as to his financial state. On 27 December 2013, the defendant had left the matrimonial home for no apparent reason, and, since then, had failed to provide the plaintiff with any information as to his whereabouts, or any financial support for their child. The plaintiff's inquiries with the defendant's family and friends were to no avail as they knew nothing themselves. The plaintiff submitted that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer attainable.

The court found that the information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions. It noted that it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, therefore, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the parties an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughro).

The parties were married on 25 August 2012. By the end of September 2012, however, the marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was a result of the defendant having had an extra-marital affair with another woman in November 2012, and the defendant subsequently leaving the plaintiff without any apparent reason or without providing her with any financial support. The plaintiff submitted that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer attainable.

The court found that the information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions. It noted that it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce in the event mediation was unsuccessful. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, therefore, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the parties an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughro).

The parties were married on 10 July 2011. By March 2012, however, they had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was a result of:

1. the defendant having had an extra-marital affair, which the plaintiff had discovered through the defendant's mobile phone;
2. the defendant prioritising himself, rather than providing the plaintiff with enough attention, affection and physical intimacy;
3. the defendant's alcohol dependency; and
4. the defendant's bi-sexual tendencies.

In July 2013, the defendant had left the matrimonial home for no apparent reason, and, since then, had failed to provide the plaintiff with any information as to his whereabouts. The plaintiff's inquiries with the defendant's family and friends were to no avail as they knew nothing. The plaintiff alleged that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer attainable.

The court found that the information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions. It noted that it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce in the event mediation was unsuccessful. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, therefore, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the parties an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughro).

The parties were married on 17 July 2011 and had their first and only child on 31 January 2012. Since the beginning of their marriage, however, the parties had quarrelled regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of:

1. the defendant's continued dependency on his parents which meant the parties had had to live with his parents, rather than alone;
2. all financial support coming from the defendant's parents, because the defendant worked for his parents;
3. the defendant not showing the plaintiff enough attention or being a good husband while she was pregnant with their child, or while she was rearing their child;
4. poor communication between the parties; and
5. the plaintiff experiencing undue stress while living with the defendant's parents.

On 1 January 2015, the plaintiff left the matrimonial home. In her claim, she submitted that the state of the parties' marriage meant that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer attainable.

The court found that the information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions. It noted that it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce in the event mediation was unsuccessful. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, therefore, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the parties an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughro).

The parties were married on 11 February 2007 and had their one and only child on 15 July 2008. By October 2011, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of:

1. the defendant having had an extra-marital affair;
2. the defendant's excessive jealousy and accusations towards the plaintiff that she had had an extra-marital affair herself;
3. the defendant's use of profane language which he would direct at the plaintiff; and
4. the defendant not providing enough financial support to meet daily domestic needs.

Problems escalated in mid-2012, causing the parties to separate. In her claim, the plaintiff submitted that the state of the parties' marriage meant that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer feasible. The court found that the information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions. It noted that it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce in the event mediation was unsuccessful. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, therefore, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the parties an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughro).

The parties were married on 20 February 2001 and had three children. Since the beginning of 2001, however, they had quarrelled regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of the defendant:

1. not being financially transparent;
2. often directing obscenities at the plaintiff, including threatening her, insulting her, and physically assaulting her; and
3. having already married another woman without the plaintiff's permission.

In her claim, the plaintiff submitted that the state of the parties' marriage meant that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, was no longer feasible. The court found that the information provided by witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions. It noted that it was required, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, to mediate the parties, and to then identify sufficient reason to grant the parties a divorce in the event mediation was unsuccessful. The court found sufficient reason in the form of ongoing conflict and, therefore, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the parties an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughro).