SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 22 December 2007 and had one child (deceased). The plaintiff submitted that, since the beginning of 2015, the parties' marriage had become disharmonious because the defendant:

1. would become excessively jealous;
2. no longer provided the plaintiff with financial support, saving his income for himself;
3. often used profane language, ordering the plaintiff to leave the home when enraged, always demanding a divorce; and
4. often threatened the plaintiff verbally by provoking the plaintiff to divorce him promptly, then pronouncing talak (verbal divorce) himself.

Problems escalated and, in March 2015, the plaintiff left the defendant, believing divorce was the only feasible option.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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 granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 12 May 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2014, the marriage had become disharmonious because:

1. the parties quarrelled regularly, their differences seemingly irreconcilable;
2. the defendant was dishonest with the plaintiff;
3. the defendant often gambled; and
4. the defendant did care for the plaintiff's children from her first marriage.

Problems escalated and, in February 2015, the plaintiff left the matrimonial home after yet another dispute. The plaintiff believed that divorce was the only feasible option remaining.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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 granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 8 January 2013 but had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, since 24 July 2014, the marriage had become disharmonious because:

1. the parties quarrelled regularly, their differences seemingly irreconcilable;
2. the defendant failed to provide his family with sufficient financial support; and
3. the parties were no longer compatible.

Problems escalated when, on 12 August 2014, the defendant arrived in Kendari from Jaya Pura, and only spent one night with the plaintiff before leaving for Bau-Bau without informing the plaintiff or her parents. The parties then remained separated for the next year. Consequently, the plaintiff felt that divorce was the only feasible option remaining.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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 granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 31 August 2004 and had one child. For the first two years of their marriage the parties had lived together in a rental property on a university campus, after which they separated indefinitely. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2007, the marriage had been disharmonious as a result of regular quarrelling, resulting from the defendant:

1. often physically assaulting the plaintiff; and
2. not providing the plaintiff with emotional and financial support since 2011.

After inspecting the plaintiff's claim, however, the court determined that the plaintiff's place of residence was outside the bounds of its jurisdiction and, therefore, dismissed the claim.

The plaintiff submitted a claim for child maintenance from the defendant (her biological father), who was previously married to her biological mother from 1995-2001. Since September 2000, four months before her parents divorced, until the time of the proceeding, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had not provided her with any financial support, either via her biological mother or directly. The plaintiff submitted that, from the age of 4-19 years, the defendant had neglected his financial obligations to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff quantified at IDR 1.5 million per month, or IDR 264 million in total for the past 14 years and eight months. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant was obligated to provide her with IDR 2 million per month in financial support until she reached 21 years of age, and that as a university lecturer with a PhD, he earned sufficient income to afford these payments.

The defendant submitted an objection to the plaintiff's case on the grounds that the plaintiff's biological mother had unilaterally changed the plaintiff's name and altered her birth certificate, the new certificate having been issued on 11 January 2007. Meanwhile, the birth certificate the defendant had in his possession was a copy of the original (dated 8 February 1996). The defendant submitted that the effect of this alteration was that it was no longer clear who the plaintiff's actual biological father was.

As part of the defendant's primary defence, he submitted that, following his divorce from the plaintiff's mother, he had finalised all financial issues through deliberatons with the plaintiff's great-aunt (now deceased), as well as the matter of the custody of the plaintiff. At the time, the defendant had abided by the plaintiff's mother's wishes and allowed the plaintiff to remain in her mother's care until she was of an age where she could knowingly choose which parent she wished to follow.

The defendant also suggested to the court that it was more likely that the plaintiff's mother had instigated the claim, given that there had been no tension in the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant, as well as the fact that the parties had only recently reunited in September 2014 after more than 13 years apart. Moreover, the defendant's relationship with the plaintiff's mother had been fractured at best, meaning that the defendant had not known of the plaintiff's specific whereabouts, other than that she had been living with her mother and grandmother in Makassar. In short, the lack of communication between the defendant and the plaintiff's mother made providing the plaintiff with financial assistance logistically unfeasible. Indeed, when the plaintiff visited the defendant with her aunt at his residence for the first time in 13 years, the defendant happily provided the plaintiff with IDR 1 million, while the defendant's father (the plaintiff's grandfather) gave her IDR 500,000. The defendant informed the court that the plaintiff later requested IDR 8 million from the defendant to cover certain educational costs. As the defendant had only recently returned from completing postgraduate study in Yogyakarta at the time of the request, however, the defendant and his wife could only afford to provide the plaintiff with IDR 4 million, which the plaintiff had refused.

The court dismissed the defendant's objection on the grounds that the plaintiff's original birth certificate had never been declared null and void by the authorised agency, and, therefore, its legal authority remained intact.

In regards to the plaintiff's claim, the court noted the conflicting laws as to the legal age of an adult: while art 47(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 47(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, define an adult as someone who is 18 years of age, art 98 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws defines an adult as a person of 21 years of age. Meanwhile, customary law (hukum adat) stipulates 15 as the relevant age. In choosing to follow that legislation that defined the legal age as 18, the court thereby found that the plaintiff was already an adult as she was 19 years of age. In reaching its decision, the court considered that the plaintiff and defendant had been separated for 13 years, that the defendant and defendant's father had offered the plaintiff IDR 1.5 million collectively on their first meeting in 13 years, and that the plaintiff had refused to accept IDR 4 million from the defendant to cover educational costs. The court also cited Indonesian Supreme Court Decision No. 608 K/AG/203 (23 March 2005), where the Supreme Court declared that the obligations of a father to provide financially for his child were Lil Intifa rather than Lil Tamlik, that is, the obligation to meet a child's needs is shared by the child's parents, and therefore, does not rest solely on the father (art 77(3) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws; art 45(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage). Accordingly, back payments were not necessary as the child's past needs were assumed to have already been met. Pursuant to the defendant's concession that he was happy to provide the plaintiff with financial assistance, provided it was within his own means, as well as surat Al Baqarah verse 233, the court ordered the defendant to pay to the defendant IDR 2 million per month until she reaches 21 years of age.

The parties were married on 22 July 2006 and had one child. The applicant submitted that, since 2010, he and the respondent had begun to quarrel regularly because, among other things, the applicant:

1. did not listen to the applicant's suggestions and advice; and
2. prioritised her career and occupation over executing her responsibilities as a wife.

Problems escalated in 2012, resulting in the applicant leaving the parties' matrimonial home. The applicant believed that the marriage was irreparable, making divorce the only feasible option.

Despite the respondent failing to attend court, the court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in surat Ar-Rum verse 21, and art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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 granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 21 January 2013 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2013, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly because the defendant:

1. often directed profanities at the plaintiff;
2. rarely provided the plaintiff with financial support; and
3. often physically assaulted the plaintiff.

Problems escalated in 2013, resulting in the plaintiff leaving the parties' matrimonial home. The plaintiff believed that the marriage was irreparable, making divorce the only feasible option.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in surat Ar-Rum verse 21, and art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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 granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

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 28 February 1986 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious up until a year ago, before she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had had an extra-marital affair, secretly married (nikah siri) this other woman, and had a child with her. When problems escalated between the parties, the defendant finally left the matrimonial home to live with his parents, where he had remained for the past year. During that time the parties had not been physically intimate with one another. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 26 January 2004, the plaintiff at the time being a new bride, the defendant a divorcee. They had one child. The plaintiff told the court that the parties' marriage had been harmonious up until a year ago, when they had started to quarrel regularly over financial matters. More specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant never provided her with shopping money to shop for daily necessities, and that the defendant no longer showed any care for the plaintiff. When problems escalated between the parties, the defendant finally left the matrimonial home to live with his parents, where he had remained for the past year. During that time the parties had not been physically intimate with one another. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 22 March 1999 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that for the past three years, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly. Moreover, that the defendant often physically assaulted her, and that she had discovered that the defendant had had an extra-marital affair. When problems escalated between the parties, the defendant finally left the matrimonial home to live with his parents, where he had remained for the past three years. During that time the parties had not been physically intimate with one another. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 20 February 2013, had one child, and lived with the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff submitted that, since March 2015, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had never provided her with any financial support since they were married. Furthermore, the defendant showed insufficient care for his family and often went out on his own. Problems escalated and, on 21 March 2015, the defendant left the plaintiff's parents' home. Since their separation the parties had not been physically intimate with one another. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 20 February 2013, had one child, and lived with the plaintiff's parents. The parties were married on 21 June 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, for the past year and a half, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant never provided her with any financial support, compelling the plaintiff to rely on her parents financially. The defendant then left the plaintiff and, since their separation a year ago, the parties had not been physically intimate with one another. Moreover, the plaintiff did not know of the defendant's whereabouts. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The parties were married on 20 February 2013, had one child, and lived with the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff submitted that, since March 2015, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had never provided her with any financial support since they were married. Furthermore, the defendant showed insufficient care for his family and often went out on his own. Problems escalated and, on 21 March 2015, the defendant left the plaintiff's parents' home. Since their separation the parties had not been physically intimate with one another. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 20 February 2013, had one child, and lived with the plaintiff's parents. The parties were married on 21 June 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, for the past year and a half, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had not provided her with any financial support, compelling the plaintiff to rely on her parents financially. The defendant then left the plaintiff and, since their separation a year ago, the parties had not been physically intimate with one another. Moreover, the plaintiff did not know of the defendant's whereabouts. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 9 December 2004 and had lived with the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2008, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant's unwillingness to gain employment meant they could not meet their domestic needs. The defendant then left the plaintiff to live with his own parents, and for the seven years they were separated, they were never physically intimate with one another. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 31 October 2012 and had lived with the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had always been quarrelsome because the defendant had never been willing to seek employment, meaning the parties could not meet their domestic needs. Two months prior to the proceeding, the defendant left the plaintiff without notice or a farewell to live with his own parents, and for the two months they were separated they had not shared any physical intimacy. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 12 May 2006 and had one child. The marriage had been harmonious until May 2015, when, the plaintiff submitted, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly because of the defendant's jealousy when a male guest came to the parties' home. Problems escalated and the defendant left the matrimonial home on 28 June 2015. The parties had remained separated for the 15 days leading up to the date on which the plaintiff had filed an application for divorce, during which time they had not been physically intimate with one another. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The parties were married on 1 September 2005 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that, since May 2008, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair, and was often intoxicated. When problems escalated not long after, the defendant left the matrimonial home and the parties remained separated for the next seven years. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's attitude and behaviour had caused her extended suffering, that she had endeavoured to rectify the situation with the defendant, but that she now felt divorce to be the only feasible option available.

The court conceded that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in Surat Ar-Rum verse 21, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) household, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, 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, and Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, the court granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also cited Kitab Al-Anwar Juz II in support of its granting a divorce in the absence of the defendant, who had failed to attend court, despite having been formally summonsed.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 2 October 2004 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had three children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of marriage, which would then enable them to obtain birth certificates for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 15 May 1979 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had five children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of marriage, which would then enable them to obtain birth certificates for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.