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 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.

The Takengon Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra). The appellant challenged this decision unsuccessfully, the Court finding that the lower court's judgment was accurate and correct. The Court also took the opportunity to note that while the appellant had denied the respondent's accusations, among which it had been proven that the appellant had never accused the respondent of having had an extra-marital affair with the head of the kampung (village), the cause of the quarrelling between the parties was not only evaluated based on the mistakes of one of the parties, and that the parties differences were indeed irreconcilable. Accordingly, a reason at law for divorce had been met.

The parties were married on 20 August 1995 and had three children. By 2012, however, they had started to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff alleged this was the result of the defendant:

1. having had an extra-marital affair with another woman in 2012, for which the plaintiff had forgiven the defendant, but then repeating his duplicitous behaviour in 2013;
2. having not held down a permanent job, meaning the family's daily needs were often not met;
3. having physically assaulted the plaintiff, for instance, punching her in the head; and
4. often uttering the word 'divorce' when the parties would argue.

Problems escalated in 2014, resulting in the plaintiff leaving the matrimonial home. While the plaintiff initially requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra), upon receiving counsel from the court, the plaintiff withdrew her case and sought to reconcile with the defendant.

The parties were married on 14 April 2006 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the defendant's ex-wife had telephoned saying she intended to borrow IDR 9 million, but the plaintiff had objected to lending her such a sum; and
2. while arguing, the defendant had insulted the plaintiff, causing the plaintiff to want to divorce the defendant.

As a result of the defendant's conduct, the plaintiff submitted that the parties had been sleeping in separate beds since 1 November 2014. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

During pre-trial mediation, however, the plaintiff agreed to withdraw her claim.

In November 2021, the UAE government issued a new personal status law from Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahayan, president of the UAE federation of seven emirates, titled Law No. 14 of 2021 Concerning the Personal Status of Non-Foreigners Muslims in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. The law covers civil marriage, divorce, alimony, joint child custody, proof of paternity, and inheritance. Most notably, this new law allows for civil marriage, not just marriage under Islamic law. It allows expats, tourists, and non-residents to marry in Abu Dhabi and allows foreigners to follow their home countries’ laws on matters of inheritance and divorce.

The Court upheld the appeal, ordering the respondent to pay to the appellant:

1. IDR 2,700,000 ('iddah - 100-day period after divorce has been granted);
2. IDR 5,000,000 (kiswah - clothing);
3. IDR 900,000 per month, backdated from May 2008 until the date of the Court's decision;
4. half of the value of the tsunami relief home of the parties.

The Court rendered the decision of the lower court (Meureudu Shari'a Court) null and void because it had failed to comply with procedural requirements contained in art 2 of Indonesian Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2008: crucially, that the court's decision is to acknowledge that the parties to a divorce proceeding have attempted to reconcile their differences via mediation, giving reference to the mediator's name and outcome of the mediation in its decision.

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. Notably, it qualified that while it was very supportive of the appellant's desire to reconcile with the respondent, its role was limited to counselling and mediating the parties, not coercing a person into reconciling with their spouse.

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), placed the parties' child in the custody of the respondent, and ordered the appellant to pay child maintenance fees of at least IDR 500,000 per month until the child reaches 21 years of age.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no fault with the decision of the lower court.

Before the Lhokseumawe Shari'a Court (lower court), the appellant had sought retrospective maintenance payments from the respondent totalling IDR 240 million (48 months, at IDR 5 million per month). The Court in this instance found that, as the parties were already divorced, this was no longer the responsibility of the respondent. It did, however, order the respondent to pay the appellant IDR 3 million per month in child maintenance.

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

The Court acknowledged the appellant's preparedness to reconcile with the respondent. It also acknowledged, however, that various measures had been taken by the parties' families, as well as the council of judges, to no avail. Accordingly, the Court affirmed 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), placed the parties' child in the care of the respondent, and ordered the appellant to pay child maintenance of IDR 700,000 per month until the child had become of age.

The Court found the reasoning of the lower court to be sound and upheld its 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).

In upholding the decision of the lower court, the Court noted that the parties had already undergone mediation with a court-appointed mediator but to no avail. The Court concluded, as the lower court had, that the parties' differences were irreconcilable.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that the conveyance of a cassation application to a religious court registrar that is not accepted does not detract from the rights of those seeking justice to submit an application for cassation directly to the Supreme Court (Mahkmah Agung). Moreover, with regards to religious court determinations that dismiss a husband's request to divorce his wife, the husband may appeal the decision, as well as seek cassation of the decision.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that half of the defendant's wage is to be provided to the plaintiff, as provided for in art 8 of Government Regulation No. 10 of 1983 on Permission to Marry and Divorce for Civil Servants, as amended by Government Regulation No. 45 of 1990. This provision is not part of religious court procedure because it is based on the decision of a state administrative officer.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that divorce applications cannot be invalidated, per arts 142(1) and 147(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for Regions Outside Java and Madrua (Reglemen Acara Hukum Untuk Daerah Luar Jawa dan Madura), where a person with power of attorney for one of the parties does not have power of attorney for the other party.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s refusal to enforce an Islamic marriage contract, which called for a postponed dowry (mahr) owed by the husband to the wife upon death or divorce of $25,000. The Court found that the groom was coerced into signing the agreement, and thus it was not valid. The Court did not delve into the potential First Amendment Establishment Clause issues considered by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

The Act replaced the Iranian Family Protection Act 1975 and modified other family law provisions as embodied in the Civil Code and the Divorce Act 1992. It contains procedural matters (Family Courts, Family Consultation Centers) as well as substantial ones (marriage, divorce, custody, nafaqa, alimony and pensions) and the criminal sanctions. Major changes introduced generally are:

A) The Family Court now involves a female consultant judge who is to give her opinion in each case, which the sitting judge (a man as in other courts) has to consider, but not to follow, in deciding the case;

B) The jurisdiction of the Family Court is now extended to additional matters, including child adoption, embryo donation, and sex change;

C) The process for divorce by mutual consent is facilitated;

D) The value of the Mahr (or the portion of the Mahr) for collecting which the debtor imprisonment provisions can be invoked is now limited to a specified amount (equal to 110 gold coin);

E) Temporary marriage needs not be registered now save in specific situations;

The parties were married on 30 May 2011. The applicant submitted that, in around 2012, the parties' home life had become disharmonious. This was primarily the result of the respondent often being angry with the applicant, and if the respondent was angry, she would often leave the home without saying where she was going. Problems escalated in May 2013 when the respondent left the home without saying, taking with her her clothes and some money. After being separated for six months, the applicant concluded that the only solution was to divorce the respondent.

Despite the respondent's absence in court, the court acceded to the applicant's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). Acknowledging that marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, that being a happy family and domestic life, was no longer feasible, it granted the divorce 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 sought to challenge the decision of the Langsa Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), but also ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant the following in maintenance: IDR 5 million (iddah - 100-day period after divorce has been granted); the monetary equivalent of two grams of gold (mut'ah); IDR 1 million (kiswah - clothing); and IDR 750,000 per month in child maintenance, until the parties' three children were of age and independent.

Overall, the Court agreed with the decision of the lower court. It did not, however, concur with the lower court's usage of the word 'menolak' (dismiss) in regards to the appellant's request that one-third of the respondent's salary be provided to the appellant as financial support, based on Government Regulation No. 10 of 1983 (amended by Government Regulation No. 45 of 1991), because those regulations relate to the discipline of civil servants, rather than marriage and divorce. Accordingly, the Court stated, such a claim should be declared 'tidak dapat diterima' (unacceptable).

The Court also increased the amount of maintenance payable by the respondent, as follows: IDR 5 million (iddah); the monetary equivalent of three grams of gold (mut'ah); IDR 2 million (kiswah); and IDR 750,000 per month in child maintenance, until the parties' three children were of age and independent.