SHARIAsource

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 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 18 June 2006 and had one child. They lived with the respondent's parents for one year, before moving to their own home, where they had lived for approximately five years. The applicant, however, claimed that he and the respondent had begun to quarrel regularly because the respondent:

1. had ordered the applicant to leave the house;
2. often owed other people money, unbeknownst to the applicant; and
3. frequently directed profane language at the applicant.

When problems escalated, the parties separated. The applicant's family's efforts to make the parties reconcile were also to no avail. As a result, the applicant believed that the only feasible option remaining was divorce.

The court stated that, because the case centred around a domestic dispute, art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 76(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989, compelled it to hear information from witnesses who were family or persons close to the parties, in order to ascertain the extent of the quarrelling between the parties. Based on the information provided by the two witnesses produced by the applicant, the court was convinced that the applicant's claim was grounded in fact. Moreover, the purpose of marriage, being to create a joyful and enduring family and domestic life, per art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, the court acceded to the applicant's request and granted him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The parties were married on 3 September 2004 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that, on 28 March 2014, the defendant accompanied the plaintiff to Medan for medical treatment. The next day the defendant returned home, leaving the plaintiff at her elder sibling's home. Initially, the parties had remained in contact. After two months, however, the plaintiff telephoned the defendant asking why he had not inquired as to how she was, and why he had not sent her any money. When the plaintiff pushed the issue, it became apparent that the defendant had intended to divorce the plaintiff.

On 4 September 2014, the defendant telephoned the plaintiff, asking her to take him to his parents' home. The plaintiff was unsure, however, for how long the defendant had been living with his parents. When the plaintiff and her parents attended the defendant's parents' home to bring him back to the parties' home, the defendant orally divorced (talak) the plaintiff. Since then the parties' communication had ceased. Moreover, the parties had lived separately since 28 March 2014, and the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. Therefore, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had contravened his marriage vows (sighat taklik talak), per the parties' marriage book (buku nikah), entitling her to divorce the defendant for a fee (iwadh).

Seeking to be exempted from any court fees, the plaintiff also submitted that she was an impecunious person, financially responsible for two children, receiving government-funded health benefits, and the holder of a social security card.

Pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i), as well as exempting her from all court fees.

The parties were married on 7 January 2007 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had been harmonious for the first five years, after which time it had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant would become unnecessarily jealous and accuse the plaintiff of having an extra-marital affair, and, in the event of any minor problem, hit the plaintiff. On one occasion in May 2011, the defendant returned home from work and asked the plaintiff why she was being so quiet. For no apparent reason, the defendant then grabbed the plaintiff by the throat so badly that she struggled to eat for the next week.

The plaintiff returned to her parents' home for three days following the choking incident, before returning to the parties' home, only to find that the defendant had left. In June 2011, the parties reconciled with the help of communal efforts, but this proved to be temporary. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), allow the parties' child to remain in her care, and, owing to her own impecuniosity, exempt her from any court fees.

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. It also granted her custody of the parties' child, and ordered the state to bear her court costs.

The parties were married on 20 September 1999 and had one child, born on 4 December 2003. For the majority of their marriage they had lived with the plaintiff's parents in Cilacap. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until 2004, after which time it had become quarrelsome because the defendant's refusal to work had left the parties without the financial means required to support themselves and their child.

In December 2005, the plaintiff had relocated to Jakarta to work as a domestic worker (pembantu). Again, in December 2008, the plaintiff relocated to Malaysia as a domestic worker. In December 2010, when the plaintiff returned to Cilacap for 20 days on leave, the parties had continued to quarrel, principally because the defendant had amassed several debts in the plaintiff's absence. The plaintiff sought to repay the defendant's debts while the defendant moved in with his older sibling. On 19 June 2011, when the plaintiff again returned to Indonesia, the defendant expressed no desire to reunite with the plaintiff or their child. Accordingly, the plaintiff, pursuant to art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, in conjunction with art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, noting that the information provided by the two witnesses produced by the plaintiff corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions.

The parties were married on 6 July 2012, after which time they had lived with the defendant's parents, before moving to the plaintiff's parents' home. The parties also had a three and a half month old son. In his vows (sighat taklik talak), the defendant promised to fulfil his spousal obligations and to treat the plaintiff well. Moreover, he stated that the plaintiff may divorce him before a religious court (pengadilan agama) if he ever:

1. left the plaintiff for two consecutive years;
2. failed to provide the plaintiff with financial support for three months;
3. caused the plaintiff any physical or psychological harm; and/or
4. neglected the plaintiff for six months.

The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for the first three years. On 6 October 2015, however, the defendant had left the plaintiff for no apparent reason, never to return. During that time the defendant neither provided the plaintiff with any financial support nor did he communicate with her, contrary to points 2 and 4 of his marriage vows. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her a judicial divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i) of IDR 10,000.

In acceding to the plaintiff's application, the court acknowledged the defendant's absence from court, but also accepted the plaintiff's submissions, as well as the written evidence submitted and the witnesses she produced in court to corroborate her evidence. Pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce for a fee and ordered her to pay costs (IDR 361,000).

The parties were married on 25 June 1999. In his vows (sighat taklik talak), the defendant promised to fulfil his spousal obligations and to treat the plaintiff well. Moreover, he stated that the plaintiff may divorce him before a religious court (pengadilan agama) if he ever:

1. left the plaintiff for two consecutive years;
2. failed to provide the plaintiff with financial support for three months;
3. caused the plaintiff any physical or psychological harm; and/or
4. neglected the plaintiff for six months.

The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for 14 years. On 10 May 2013, however, the defendant had left the plaintiff for no apparent reason, never to return. During that time the defendant neither provided the plaintiff with any financial support nor did he show any care for the plaintiff or communicate with the plaintiff, contrary to points 1, 2 and 4 of his marriage vows. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her a judicial divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i) of IDR 10,000.

In acceding to the plaintiff's application, the court acknowledged the defendant's absence from court, but also accepted the plaintiff's submissions, as well as the written evidence submitted and the witnesses she produced in court to corroborate her evidence. Pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce for a fee and ordered her to pay costs (IDR 706,000).

The parties were married on 3 July 1995. In his vows (sighat taklik talak), the defendant promised to fulfil his spousal obligations and to treat the plaintiff well. Moreover, he stated that the plaintiff may divorce him before a religious court (pengadilan agama) if he ever:

1. left the plaintiff for two consecutive years;
2. failed to provide the plaintiff with financial support for three months;
3. caused the plaintiff any physical or psychological harm; and/or
4. neglected the plaintiff for six months.

The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for 16 years. In May 2011, however, the defendant had left the plaintiff for no apparent reason, never to return. During that time the defendant neither provided the plaintiff with any financial support nor did he show any care for the plaintiff or communicate with the plaintiff, contrary to points 1, 2 and 4 of his marriage vows. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her a judicial divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i) of IDR 10,000.

In acceding to the plaintiff's application, the court acknowledged the defendant's absence from court, but also accepted the plaintiff's submissions, as well as the written evidence submitted and the witnesses she produced in court to corroborate her evidence. Pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce for a fee and ordered her to pay costs (IDR 176,000).

The parties were married on 21 March 2012 and had no children. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for the first eight months. Since August 2013, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. frequently neglected her duties and responsibilities as a wife;
2. frequently left the parties' home for no apparent reason, with no destination in mind, and without the applicant's permission;
3. was frequently stubborn when counselled by the applicant;
4. had accumulated debts unbeknownst to the applicant;
5. had a mother and sibling that frequently meddled in the parties' domestic affairs;
6. was frequently dishonest with the applicant;
7. had uttered the word 'divorce' ('cerai') to the applicant; and
8. had a disharmonious relationship with the applicant's family.

Problems escalated on 25 November 2015 when the applicant suggested that the respondent not leave the applicant's parents' home yet again. The ensuing argument led the applicant to order the respondent to leave his parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the past 13 months. The applicant had made several attempts to reconcile with the respondent, albeit unsuccessfully. The applicant, therefore, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, 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 Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 11 October 2009 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, after two years, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial support;
2. would return home in the middle of the night, without first obtaining the plaintiff's permission;
3. was an alcoholic and a gambler;
4. had carried on an extra-marital affair with another woman;
5. would frequently direct unwarranted accusations at the plaintiff that she was having an extra-marital affair herself;
6. had incurred debts unbeknownst to the plaintiff; and
7. had neglected the plaintiff and the parties' child.

On 16 June 2012, after an argument regarding the defendant's outstanding debts, the defendant left the parties' home. He never returned and ceased all communications with the plaintiff. Familial attempts to bring the parties to reconcile their differences had been unsuccessful and, based on the plaintiff's submissions, the plaintiff was resigned to the fact that an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) was the only feasible option remaining.

Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years and ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 22 December 1994. At that time the plaintiff was a virgin and the defendant a bachelor. They had lived in their own home and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for 15 years, after which time it had become quarrelsome because the defendant had:

1. failed to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial support to meet daily needs;
2. frequently gambled and used illicit drugs; and
3. frequently beaten the plaintiff and threatened her with a knife.

On 8 October 2014, the defendant left for Jakarta for two months, during which time he failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. When the plaintiff requested a divorce, the defendant returned to Takengon and threatened the plaintiff with a knife. Since that incident the parties had remained separated (for the past four months). Believing the parties had no other option but divorce, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her 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 court also noted accepted evidence from the plaintiff that the defendant had previously been arrested for physically assaulting the plaintiff (domestic violence) on 28 June 2012.

The parties were married on 23 January 1986. Before marrying, the applicant was a bachelor and the respondent a virgin. They had lived with the respondent's parents for a year before moving into their own home in Kuala Simpang Ulim. While they had 11 children, their marriage had been quarrelsome after one year. The applicant submitted that this was because the respondent:

1. would ignore his advice;
2. was not a competent homemaker; and
3. when the parties would quarrel, would go quiet, thus making it difficult to resolve the problem.

On 19 April 2010, the parties separated after yet another argument. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had failed and the applicant, accordingly, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The respondent refuted the applicant's submissions, stating that it was the applicant who instigated their arguments, and that she would go quiet in order to prevent arguments. The respondent also stated that if the applicant were to divorce her she would require IDR 50,000 per day for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted).

After corroborating the applicant's submissions with information provided by two of the applicant's witnesses, 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 applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties. The court also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 500,000 for iddah.

The parties were married on 15 March 2012 but had no children. They had begun to quarrel as early as two months after being married because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. had another wife, which he was dishonest about to the plaintiff;
2. drank alcohol and gambled, often coercing the plaintiff into providing him with money.

Problems escalated in July 2012 as a result of the defendant's selfishness and refusal to resolve matters with his other wife. The defendant left the parties' home, providing the plaintiff with no subsequent financial support. It followed that the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option remaining was divorce, pursuant to art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

Based on the information before it, including witness statements, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, and Manhaj al-Thullab juz VI. Despite failing to attend the proceeding, the court acknowledged that the defendant had been summonsed officially, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 8 March 1999, after which they lived in a rental property for three years, before moving to their own home. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had been happily married for 13 years and had two children. By December 2009, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome after the defendant had had an extra-marital affair with a woman named Ega from West Java. The plaintiff submitted that she had learned about the affair from a work colleage of the defendant, and after conducting her own investigations, had confirmed what she had been told. By December 2011, the parties had begun to quarrel again after the defendant had had another extra-marital affair, this time with a woman named Yuli from Biudukfoho (the parties' maid). On 29 March 2012, the parties quarrelled yet again after the defendant received a phone call and SMS around 11:30pm from another woman. When the plaintiff inquired with the defendant as to who the woman was, the defendant told the plaintiff she was a caregiver at an orphanage in Kupang, which the defendant had coincidentally frequented.

As a result of the defendant's conduct, the parties had been separated since 30 March 2012. The plaintiff requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) in order to bring this unfortunate set of circumstances to an end. The plaintiff also sought IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance from the defendant, whose salary was IDR 3.5 million per month.

The court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. It acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The plaintiff later withdrew her claim for child maintenance payments, but the Court did grant her custody of the parties' two children.

The parties were married on 18 September 2005. The plaintiff submitted, however, that only a few months after she and the defendant had married, she received a telephone call from a woman calling herself Ciah, claiming to have secretly married (nikah siri) the defendant and being five-months pregnant with the defendant's child. From thereon, this became a point of contention between the parties, despite the defendant never validating the claims made by this other woman.

The plaintiff alleged that other causes of tension between the parties included:

1. the defendant often being angry with the plaintiff for no apparent reason;
2. the defendant never contributing financially to the parties' domestic needs, thereby making the plaintiff assume he was spending his salary on his other wife;
3. the plaintiff and defendant having been separated since the end of 2013;
4. since the beginning of 2011, the defendant having not executed his spousal responsibilities vis-a-vis the plaintiff; and
5. notably, frequent quarrelling between the parties causing the plaintiff to want to move to Bireuen for work, but not being granted permission to do so by the defendant, the dispute escalating to the point that the defendant hit the plaintiff, causing her to seek medical treatment for facial bruising.

The plaintiff also claimed that, from January 2011-present, the defendant had failed to provide her with financial and emotional support. The plaintiff quantified the financial support she believed the defendant owed her at IDR 2 million per month for 41 months (IDR 82 million). The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant had failed to provide her with a true dowry (mahar) at the time of their marriage. Rather, the defendant had borrowed five grams of pure gold from the plaintiff's parents, which he had returned after they were married, vowing to the plaintiff that he would one day give to her five grams of pure gold, or the cash equivalent thereof. The defendant, the plaintiff submitted, never upheld that promise.

The court acknowledged that the plaintiff had appropriately sought and obtained a letter of permission from her superior officer to divorce the defendant, and that the defendant's objection to that letter was irrelevant insofar as the court was unauthorised to intervene in the affairs of a government agency. The court also noted that the parties had sought to reconcile their differences via mediation, but to no avail.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in shughra), acknowledging that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and surat Al-rum verse 21, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) homelife was no longer feasible. Moreover, that ongoing conflict between the parties was sufficient reason to grant a divorce, 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. The court, however, dismissed the plaintiff's claim for back-payment maintenance costs (IDR 82 million), noting that the plaintiff, like the defendant, worked as a civil servant, who would had to have first obtained the defendant's permission to work. The court noted that if one of the plaintiff's reasons for wanting to divorce the defendant was due to a lack of financial support, to then demand money from the defendant would contradict her claim.

The parties were married on 19 May 2003, after which they lived with the plaintiff's parents in Banda Aceh for two years, until the end of 2005. In 2006 they moved, and had lived in Banda Aceh until 2015, during which time they had had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had lived harmoniously until 2008, after which time they had begun to quarrel regularly, because the defendant:

1. frequently left the matrimonial home, only to return the next morning, if at all, without showing any regard for the plaintiff and their children, and if the defendant did return home, he would often be angry with the plaintiff for no apparent reason;
2. frequently physically assaulted the plaintiff, and would even, oven minor matters, resort to physical violence, hitting and kicking the plaintiff;
3. showed no care for the plaintiff and their children whatsoever, rather, prioritising himself over domestic needs such as costs associated with the parties' children.

The plaintiff informed the court that she had previously filed an application for a judicial divorce with the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court on 3 October 2011, however, had withdrawn that application after reconciling with the defendant. Moreover, that between the parties they had reached a reconciliation agreement (perjanjian damai) on 11 July 2002 before Chief Justice Drs. H. Idris Budiman. As the defendant had failed to maintain his end of the bargain, the plaintiff submitted that she had legal grounds to file an application for judicial divorce. The plaintiff also sought IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance.

In the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in shughra), acknowledging that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and surat Al-rum verse 21, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) homelife was no longer feasible. Moreover, that ongoing conflict between the parties was sufficient reason to grant a divorce, 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.

In regards to their children, the court found that while they remained the joint responsibility of the parties, the plaintiff would be better placed to rear and educate them given their still being pre-pubescent (belum mumayyiz). This also accorded with the requirement contained in art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court emphasised its belief that a mother would be more patient and meticulous in raising the children, and that to separate them from the plaintiff would be incredibly problematic given their age. The court also cited art 59(2) of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights, which acknowledges the rights and needs of children to maintain a personal relationship with their father. Accordingly, it granted the defendant visitation rights, as well as the right to be consulted regarding his children's education and development, as contained in art 26(1) of Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection. The court did not accede to the plaintiff's request for IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance, but instead ordered the defendant to pay to the plaintiff IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance.

The parties were married on 15 May 1990 and had two children (aged 19 and 14), both of whom were in the care of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until 1992, after which time the plaintiff learned from the defendant's sibling visiting from Tual, Southeast Maluku, that the defendant already had a wife in Tual. While the defendant had denied the allegation, he had also become visibly upset and angry. The plaintiff submitted that she had felt deceived by the defendant, who had maintained at the time the parties married that he was unmarried. The plaintiff had hoped the defendant could be open and honest with her and accountable for his conduct. In 1995, however, when the plaintiff became pregnant with the parties' second child, another woman came to the parties' home. When the plaintiff inquired with the defendant as to who this other woman was, the defendant refused to respond, instead taking all his clothes and leaving the plaintiff and the parties' home. It turned out, the plaintiff submitted, that the woman was the defendant's third wife, who the defendant had recently married, unbeknownst to the plaintiff.

A month later the defendant returned to the parties' home. At that time the parties were living in a rental property. Not long after the defendant returned, however, in 1999, another woman came to the parties' home. This time, when the plaintiff asked the defendant who the woman was, the defendant chased the plaintiff and the parties' children out of the rental property. It later turned out that the woman was the defendant's fourth wife, who he had also recently married, again, unbeknownst to the plaintiff.

Three months later the defendant summoned the plaintiff to return to the rental property. The plaintiff obliged. In 2004, however, the defendant left the home for four months. When the plaintiff telephoned the defendant to ask why he had not yet returned, he replied that he was hiring a car from someone and then planned to live with his sibling in Ambon. When the plaintiff went to the Governor's Office in Ambon to attend to some administrative matters, she met with the defendant's sibling. She asked him whether or not the defendant had been living with him, as the defendant had claimed. The defendant's sibling told the plaintiff that the defendant had never lived with him.

On 24 April 2004, the plaintiff telephoned the defendant, telling him to come home. When the defendant came home, the plaintiff asked him what he wanted. It was then that the defendant told the plaintiff he would later provide her with divorce papers, before taking all his clothes and leaving.

The plaintiff submitted that whenever one of the defendant's wives would come to the parties' home, the defendant would become verbally aggressive and use inappropriate language with the plaintiff. Having suffered emotionally for an extended period of time, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court acknolwedged that the parties' marriage was in an irreparable state and no longer constituted a joyful and everlasting domestic life, per art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life, per art 3 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 acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.