SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 2 December 2013 but had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, since March 2014, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide for his family; and
2. often came home in the middle of the night for no apparent reason.

Problems escalated and, by April 2014, the parties had separated. 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 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 9 October 1993 and had three children. Initially, their marriage had been harmonious, however, since July 2011, the respondent had become angry and frustrated with the applicant because the applicant had failed to provide her with sufficient financial support. As a scavenger (pemulung), the applicant would bring home, at most, IDR 50,000 per day. The respondent had returned to her parents' home in Jember and the applicant to Bali. The parties had not communicated since October 2012.

Pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with 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 separated for more than two consecutive years, without any communication.

The respondent had worked in Taiwan from 2007-2013, returning every three years at the completion of a work contract. The parties had quarrelled over how the appellant used money the respondent would send to the appellant from Taiwan, and, since 2013, the parties had not lived together or communicated whatsoever.

The court upheld the decision of the lower court to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra), finding on the facts that the parties' marriage was indeed irreparable for the purposes of art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, it directed the appellant to pay costs.

The parties were married on 9 February 2005 but had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, by October 2009, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide for his family;
2. would physically beat the plaintiff.

Problems escalated and, by September 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 him a revocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

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 6 June 1988, after which they lived with the plaintiff's parents and had three children. From December 2012, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant struggled to meet the family's financial needs. In January 2013 the parties separated and remained separated for the 11 months leading up to the divorce proceeding.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff had met the evidentiary burden contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it therefore acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 20 October 2000 and had two children. By October 2010, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had been courting another woman. Problems escalated in September 2013, resulting in the parties separating for the two months leading up to the divorce proceeding.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff had met the evidentiary burden contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it therefore acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Blangkejeren Shari'a Court, which granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). The Court also ordered the respondent to pay the following maintenance to the appellant: IDR 2 million (iddah), IDR 1 million (kiswah), IDR 1.5 million (maskan) and IDR 5.5 million (mut'ah).

The Court noted that the lower court had not determined the issue of child custody, as required under art 41(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The Court ordered the respondent to pay the following increased maintenance to the appellant: IDR 9 million (iddah), IDR 3 million (kiswah), IDR 30 million (mut'ah), IDR 2 million per month in child support until the children reach 21 years of age, and IDR 1.5 million per month to cover the children's school fees.

The parties were previously married and had sought a ruling from the Lhokseumawe Shari'a Court in regards to what constituted joint assets as acquired during the time of their marriage.

The Lhoksemawe Shari'a Court had determined which assets were joint assets, and these included two vehicles (one for which money was still owed), several plots of land, a house, and credit card debt owed to Bank Rakyat Indonesia.

Despite restipulating many of the same joint assets as the lower court, the Court rendered the ruling of the lower court null and void and adjudicated on its own. It found that some evidence provided did not constitute a sworn statement, rendering an allegation that the respondent had a debt of IDR 15 million to be inadmissible. The Court also found that the lower court had erred in not declaring a home a joint asset, despite the appellant stating as much.

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

The Court noted several deficiencies in the judgment of the lower court: notably, that as it was the wife who had sought the divorce, she was required to carry out the period of iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), one of the purposes of which is istibra' (cleansing her womb of her husband's seed). Based on art 41(c) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, istibra' requires the husband to provide his former wife with financial support, accommodation, and clothing during the period of iddah.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the original decision to grant an irrevocable divorce, but ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent IDR 2.1 million for iddah.

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 sugra).

The Court upheld the decision to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce, but noted that as it was the wife who had sought the divorce, she was required to carry out the period of iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), one of the purposes of which is istibra' (cleansing herself of her husband's seed). Based on art 41(c) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, istibra' requires the husband to provide his former wife with financial support, accommodation and clothing during the period of iddah.

Accordingly, the Court also ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent IDR 1.5 million as mut'tah (divorce compensation).

The parties were married on 26 November 2005. They lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ home and had one child (aged 8). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. In May 2008, however, the defendant left the plaintiff without any notice. Communication between the parties ceased, and the plaintiff's efforts to locate the defendant were unsuccessful.

The plaintiff, pursuant to art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, requested the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughro). The court acceded to the plaintiff's request, acknowledging that the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years.

The parties were married on 5 December 2010 and had one child (born 21 January 2012). The plaintiff submitted that, in October 2011, the defendant had left the plaintiff to find employment and never returned, providing the plaintiff with no subsequent information as to his whereabouts. The plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce for a fee (talak satu khul’i). The court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce, pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds that the defendant had breached figures 1, 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage vows. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay divorce compensation (IDR 10,000) and court costs (IDR 346,000).

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

The Court concurred with the decision of the lower court, but also noted the respondent's obligation to carry out iddah (100 day-period after which divorce has been granted), one of the purposes of which is istibra' (cleansing herself of her husband's seed). Based on art 41(c) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 149(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, istibra' requires the husband to provide his former wife with mut'ah (divorce compensation) during the period of iddah. In this instance, the Court ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent IDR 3 million in mut'ah.

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

In dismissing the appeal, the Court affirmed that the parties had continuously quarrelled while married and that laying blame on one of the parties was futile given the objective of marriage, as enunciated in art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975. The Court acknowledged the appellant's efforts to reconcile with the respondent, especially as the parties had children, but also conceded that it could not act as the appellant's saviour (dewa penyelamat) and compel the respondent to reunite with the appellant.

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 concurred with the lower court's decision, citing the fact that mediation had failed to reconcile the parties' differences, along with the parties' history of continuous quarrelling and separate living arrangements. The Court found that a sufficient reason for divorce had been established, as required under art 39(1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, that being ongoing conflict.

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

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

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

The parties were married on 7 March 2011 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had deteriorated due to economic hardship, that being that the defendant had made no effort to obtain employment, was often intoxicated, and therefore unable to contribute financially to meet the parties' domestic needs. In 2013, the parties separated.

On 11 November 2014, the plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sugro) 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.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff’s request, granting an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughro), and ordering the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 401,000).

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 29 Feburary 1996 in accordance with Islamic tradition. After marrying they lived in Banda Aceh where they had two children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that since 2007 the parties had quarrelled regularly because the defendant was:

1. not transparent with his finances;
2. inattentive to the plaintiff's biological needs; and
3. very argumentative.

Accordingly, the plaintiff sought a judicial divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra).

The court acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 65 of Law No. 7 of 1989, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 391,000).

The parties were married on 4 August 1991 and had two children. The marriage became quarrelsome, however, after the plaintiff:

1. learned that the defendant had married another person, unbeknownst to the plaintiff;
2. was pushed to the ground by the defendant, injuring her back and hip; and
3. was threatened at gunpoint by the defendant.

While the plaintiff sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughro), the defendant vehemently denied the plaintiff's allegations, submitting that the parties' homelife was still harmonious and quarrel-free.

The court, however, on the evidence, acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds of ongoing conflict.