SHARIAsource

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Lhokseumawe Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (thalak satu ba'in sughra). The Court, however, found no judicial error in the lower court's reasoning and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

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

The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, however, noting that the parties had already undergone court-appointed mediation to no avail.

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

After considering the appellant's objections, the Court opted to uphold the decision of the lower court.

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

After considering the appellant's objections, the Court opted to uphold the decision of the lower court.

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

The Court found the lower court's judgment to be sound and accurate and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), and granted the respondent custody of the parties' three children.

The Court dismissed the appeal.

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

The Court dismissed the appeal, however, finding no fault with the lower court's decision.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Lhoksukon Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), as well as custody of the parties' two children.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the judgment of the lower court to be sound and accurate.

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

The Court dismissed the appeal, however, finding the lower court's judgment to be sound and accurate.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Langsa Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), but also ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant IDR 4 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), as well as IDR 2 million in mut'ah (divorce compensation).

The Court concurred with the decision of the lower court, but noted that the appellant had requested IDR 50,000 per day for the period of iddah, to which the respondent had not objected. Moreover, the Court cited verse 241 of Surah A-Baqarah from the Qur'an, which states that once a husband divorces his wife, he is to pay her mut'ah fairly. Accordingly, the Court increased the payment for iddah to IDR 5 million and mut'ah to IDR 10 million.

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

The Court concurred with the decision of the lower court, choosing only to make slight improvements to the formulation of the lower court's decision.

The Singkil Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) and custody of the parties' daughter.

The Court found no fault with the decision, accordingly dismissing the appeal.

The Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu), but had granted the appellant custody of the parties' child. As part of the appellant's counterclaim, the lower court also ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant IDR 3 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), IDR 7 million for mut'ah (divorce compensation), kiswah (clothing) and maskan (accommodation), and IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance until the parties' child was of age and independent.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court found that, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, sufficient evidence had been produced to suggest there had been ongoing conflict and disagreement between the parties, meaning any hope of the parties living together harmoniously once again was gone. It did, however, change the amounts payable by the respondent to the appellant to: IDR 5 million for iddah, IDR 7 million for mut'ah (divorce compensation), kiswah (clothing) and maskan (accommodation), and IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance.

The Sigli Shari'a Court (lower court) had declared the parties' marriage lawful, and then granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The appellant sought to overturn this decision. The Court, however, found the reasoning of the lower court to be sound and accurate and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

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

The Court dismissed the appeal, however, finding the decision of the lower court to be sound and accurate.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that a plaintiff's demands can be dealt with jointly, provided that the plaintiff's demands for divorce, along with the legal consequences therein, as regulated in art 86 of Law No. 7 of 1989, are not frustrated by separate demands not regulated in art 86.

The Shah Bano case is a landmark and controversial case in India’s Supreme Court which dealt with the question of the length of time a Muslim ex-husband would have to provide his ex-wife with monthly maintenance payments after a divorce, considering Muslim personal law and Indian civil law.

In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court of India declared the practice of triple ṭalāq (instant divorce) a violation of Muslim women’s constitutional rights. This legislative act is the result of that judgment and criminalizes the practice of triple ṭalāq.

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

While the Court slightly amended the formulation of the lower court's decision, for all intents and purposes, it did not alter the effect of the decision. It affirmed the decision to grant an irrevocable divorce, as well as the decision to place one of the parties' children in the care of the respondent. The other three children were free to choose with which parent they would live, while the appellant was ordered to pay child maintenance on a monthly basis until the children were of age.

The Lhoksukon Shari'a Court (lower court) had held four separate hearings, only the second of which had the respondent attended, despite having been summonsed to attend all four. The Court noted that the appellant's mother's testimony had established that the parties had quarrelled often and that their differences were irreconcilable. The respondent's conduct also suggested that he had intended to repudiate his own rights vis-a-vis procedural fairness. The Court, therefore, held that the appellant had established a legitimate reason to divorce the respondent, viz. ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

Accordingly, the Court overturned the decision of the lower court, granting the appellant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).