SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 11 February 2004 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had been harmonious initially; however, since August 2012, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide for his family;
2. was abbrasive with the plaintiff; and
3. frequently engaged in extra-marital sexual relations.

Problems escalated and, by January 2014, the parties were sleeping in separate beds, and by March 2014, the defendant had left the matrimonial home. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, 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.

The parties were married on 8 July 2007 but had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, by January 2008, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the defendant had failed to provide for his family;
2. the defendant's family would meddle in their domestic affairs;
3. the defendant frequently threatened the plaintiff; and
4. the defendant directed profane language at the plaintiff.

Problems escalated and, by July 2014, the parties had separated after the defendant left the matrimonial home. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The defendant conceded that he had used profane language with the plaintiff, but only because she had accused him of having had an extra-marital affair. Moreover, that the parties had quarrelled because the plaintiff controlled the parties' finances, to the defendant's dismay.

On the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, 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.

The parties were married on 23 January 2001 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious initially, but, since August 2013, it had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide for his family;
2. had had an extra-marital affair; and
3. drank excessively.

Problems escalated and, by December 2013, the parties had separated after the defendant left the matrimonial home. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, 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 3 June 1993 and had seven children. The applicant submitted that, by July 2013, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent:

1. would ignore and oppose the applicant's advice;
2. did not want to look after the parties' children;
3. failed to appreciate what the applicant would provide her with; and
4. had had an extra-marital affair.

Problems escalated and, by March 2014, the parties had separated after the respondent left the matrimonial home. The applicant had already made efforts to reconcile with the respondent but to no avail. Accordingly, the applicant requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raji).

Despite the respondent's absence from court, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, 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.

In 2011, after 23 years of marriage, the parties' relationship had begun to deteriorate. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had married another woman with whom he had a child (son). For two years the plaintiff and defendant had lived separately and had not been physically intimate with one another.

The defendant denied the plaintiff's submissions, stating that the plaintiff had often accused him of marrying another woman, and that her accusations were generally based on hearsay. Moreover, the defendant submitted that he had often tried to initiate physical intimacy with the plaintiff, only to be rejected.

After unsuccessfully counselling the parties to reconcile, the court noted that the defendant had acknowledged the deterioration of the relationship, but not the causes thereof. While the defendant did not want a divorce, the plaintiff's submissions, supported by witness statements that the parties had already tried to reconcile, moved the court to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff had met the evidentiary requirements contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, and acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The appellant had requested an additional examination be conducted by the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court) before the Court handed down its judgment. Content this had taken place, while dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the lower court's decision to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), the Court noted the following:

1. the child maintenance fees for the parties' two children deemed appropriate by the lower court were unclear in quantum; and
2. so too were the maskan (accommodation) and kiswah (clothing) allowances afforded by the appellant to the respondent.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the appellant, pursuant to art 41(c) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 149 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to pay to the respondent at least IDR 750,000 per child until the children reached 21 years of age, and IDR 3 million for maskan and kiswah.

A bin H (deceased) married F binti A (second appellant) in 1974, after his first wife (A binti I) had passed away. The question before the Court was whether or not the property subject of the will was the joint property of the deceased and second appellant, or just that of the deceased. If it had been acquired while the deceased and second appellant were married, art 35 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 85 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, dictated that it was their joint property, which had obvious consequences in terms of how it was distributed among the deceased's beneficiaries.

In overturning the decision of the Calang Shari'a Court (lower court), the Court found that certain portions of some of the parcels of land in dispute were the sole property of the deceased, while others were the joint property of the deceased and second appellant. The deceased's sole property was to be divided between his 10 beneficiaries (two wives and eight children), while the joint property of the second appellant and the deceased was to be divided 50/50 between the second appellant and the deceased. The inheritance of A binti I and M binti A bin H (one of the deceased's daughters, also deceased) was to be distributed among the surviving beneficiaries.

The parties were married on 26 August 2006. They lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ home and had one child (aged 8). By 2011, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant:

1. consumed alcohol excessively; and
2. frequently gambled.

In 2012, the defendant left the plaintiff, never to return. He made no attempts to communicate with the plaintiff, and provided her with no financial support. The plaintiff claimed to have suffered as a result and requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra). The court, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to plaintiff’s request on the grounds that the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years.

The parties were married on 20 September 2000, after which they lived with the plaintiff's parents for four years and three months. The parties had two children. Initially the marriage was harmonious, however, by 2004 the parties had begun to quarrel frequently, culminating in the defendant leaving the plaintiff on 21 December 2004. At the date of the proceeding, the parties had been separated for five years, the defendant living with his parents. During those five years the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support or any other support in kind. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed that the defendant had breached figures 1, 2 and 3 of their wedding vows (ta'lik talak), and was prepared to pay an 'iwadl of IDR 1,000 for the defendant to grant her a divorce (talak satu khul'i).

In the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. Pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it granted the plaintiff a divorce on the grounds that the defendant had breached their wedding vows.

The parties were married on 13 June 2013. Initially, they lived with the plaintiff's parents for a week before moving to their own bunkhouse for a month. The plaintiff then left in August 2013. The plaintiff submitted that, since June 2013, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious due to:

1. the defendant's dishonesty with regard to work and household finances;
2. the defendant's disinterest in the plaintiff's advice; and
3. the defendant stating he would prefer to live with his older sister than stay with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff maintained that an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shugra) was the only option after both parties' families had unsuccessfully sought to make them reconcile. The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws concurred, granting the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 10 April 1994 and had four children. The plaintiff submitted that, around 2013, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly because the defendant:

1. did not appreciate the plaintiff as his wife;
2. no longer executed his responsibilities as a husband; and
3. had had an extra-marital affair.

Problems escalated in 2013, resulting in the parties sleeping in separate beds (despite remaining under the same roof). Regardless, the plaintiff believed that the marriage was irreparable, making divorce the only feasible option.

In his oral response to the court, the defendant disputed the three causes of conflict between the parties, but held no objection to the court granting the plaintiff 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, granted her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 6 July 2008 and had one child (born on 23 January 2010). They had lived together in Singgalang for two months before moving to Padang, before then returning to live in Singgalang on 24 August 2014. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. After returning to live in Singgalang, however, the defendant, with the plaintiff's blessing, left to look for employment. The defendant never returned and left the plaintiff nothing of value to sell to provide herself and her child with financial support. At the time of the proceeding, the parties had already been separated for a year, and efforts on the part of the plaintiff and her family to locate the defendant had been in vain. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the Court grant her a divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i).

Acknowledging that the defendant had breached points 2 and 4 of his wedding vows (sighat taklik talak), the court, purusant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request and granted her a divorce for a fee (iwadh) of IDR 10,000.

The parties were married on 24 October 2008 and had one child (born on 9 March 2010). After they married they lived with the plaintiff's parents in Padang until they separated. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. On 13 October 2010, however, the parties quarrelled when the plaintiff requested that the defendant purchase gold earrings for the parties' child, who was only six months old. The plaintiff submitted that the request caused the defendant to become angry, orally divorce the plaintiff, and immediately leave the matrimonial home. For the next four years the parties remained separated, during which time the defendant failed to provide for the plaintiff, nor did he leave behind any items of value that the plaintiff could sell to provide herself with financial assistance. Moreover, the plaintiff did not know of the defendant's whereabouts. The plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The court, pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) 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 years.

The parties were married on 5 December 2014, after which they lived in a rental property owned by the respondent's parents in Siteba for just one day, before the respondent left for no apparent reason. The applicant returned to his parents' home, while the respondent appeared at her parents' home four days after leaving. After separating, the applicant learned that the respondent had struggled with the concept of being married to the applicant (the parties' marriage was arranged), and had not been prepared to marry the applicant.

On 29 December 2014, the parties underwent counselling, with the assistance of family and a mediator from the Office of Religious Affairs. The counselling, however, was in vain. The applicant decided that the parties could not remain married and requested the Court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, 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.

The parties were married on 28 July 1988 and had four children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until September 2006, after which time the defendant had married another woman, unbeknownst to the plaintiff. Since June 2010, when the defendant left the plaintiff to be exclusively with his other wife, the parties had not been in contact. The plaintiff submitted that the past two years and 10 months leading up to the proceeding had caused her great emotional suffering, and that she no longer held onto hope that the parties would reunite. Accordingly, she requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) 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 years.

The parties were married on 21 March 2011 and had one child. They had, at times, lived with both the applicant's parents and the respondent's parents. By January 2012, however, the applicant submitted that the marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent:

1. would ignore the applicant's advice;
2. refused to carry out her spousal obligations;
3. would want to return her to parents' home if she became angry; and
4. had been dishonest with the applicant.

Problems escalated in August 2012 when the respondent forbade the applicant from visiting his family who were mourning the loss of a family member. Despite efforts from both parties' families and the applicant to counsel the respondent about her conduct, the respondent refused to listen, instead leaving the applicant, returning to her parents' home, without the applicant's permission. The parties had remained separated for the nine months leading up to the proceeding, which had caused the applicant great emotional suffering. The applicant sought the court's permission to divorce the respondent, submitting that there was no hope of the parties reuniting (talak satu raj'i).

Despite the respondent's absence from court, 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 applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 7 November 2007, after which time they had lived with the defendant's parents for five years. The parties had two children. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By 2010, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. would direct profane language at the plaintiff; and
2. would frequently become emotional.

On 20 November 2012, the defendant filed for divorce with the Parepare Religious Court before subsequently withdrawing his application. Despite withdrawing the application, it had already made the plaintiff relocate to her parents' home, where she had remained for the four months leading up to the proceeding. The plaintiff submitted that she could not see herself reuniting with the defendant and, accordingly, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, 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 parties were married on 7 April 1990 and had four children. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had been harmonious until August 2008, after which time it had become quarrelsome because the defendant had:

1. developed a gambling addiction;
2. never provided the plaintiff with financial support;
3. developed an addition to alcohol; and
4. had an extra-marital affair.

On 11 March 2013, when the plaintiff learned of the defendant's extra-marital affair, she asked the defendant to leave their home. The parties had subsequently remained separated for the month leading up to the proceeding. Familial intervention had also failed to make the parties reconcile. The plaintiff, accordingly, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), and that, owing to her own impecuniosity, it exempt her from any court fees.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the state to bear the plaintiff's costs.

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

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

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

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

The parties were married on 7 October 2002 and had one child, who was now in the care of the plaintiff. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. By November 2006, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. The defendant suffered from an (undisclosed) mental illness, preventing him from being able to work. The plaintiff submitted that she could not carry on married to the defendant, having already left him by returning to live with her parents in November 2006. The parties had remained separated for the six years leading up to the proceeding. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

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