SHARIAsource

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.

The parties were married on 4 February 2012 but had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, by December 2014, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. would leave the parties' home for days on end; and
2. had married another woman.

At the beginning of November 2015, the defendant left the parties' home for good and had subsequently failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. Therefore, the plaintiff submitted, divorce was the only viable option remaining.

In court, however, the plaintiff submitted verbally that she wished to withdraw her claim as the parties had reconciled and were once again living together.

The parties were married on 8 July 2004 and had one child. They had lived with the applicant's parents for three years, before moving to a house behind a mobile phone sales counter. The applicant submitted that, by 8 September 2009, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent had left him for another man by the name of Randi. This had caused the applicant to suffer emotionally. Since 8 September 2009 until the time of the proceeding (four years and seven months), the parties had been separated. Accordingly, the applicant sought the court's permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent.

Despite the respondent'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 applicant's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two years.

The parties were married on 9 September 1996 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome early on for reasons unbeknownst to the plaintiff. The defendant would often become intoxicated and physically beat the plaintiff, as well as leave the parties' home for days on end. In February 2006, the defendant finally left the plaintiff and their two children. As a result, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The defendant responded to the plaintiff's submissions, submitting that the plaintiff had already married another man in July 2010, and questioning whether or not Islamic law permitted a woman to marry another man before her husband had first divorced her. The defendant conceded that the parties quarrelled frequently but reasoned that it was common for married couples to do so. Moreover, that the reason the parties quarrelled as frequently as they did was that the plaintiff would often leave the parties' home, leaving behind their two children for days on end. The defendant also conceded that he had physically beaten the plaintiff when in an intoxicated state but justified it on the grounds that the plaintiff would frequently leave the parties' home to fraternise with other men.

In response to the plaintiff's submission that the defendant had left the plaintiff and their children in mid-February 2006, the defendant responded that he had commenced work in West Seram regency on 1 February 2000, and that every time he had returned home on a weekend the plaintiff was never there. In actual fact, the defendant submitted, it was the plaintiff who had left the parties' home from mid-2008 until 31 January 2011, evidenced by the fact the plaintiff had been renting a room in Ambon with the man she subsequently married. Moreover, the parties' children had been living with the defendant's parents. The defendant submitted that he was surprised to learn, when he returned home on 1 Feburary 2011, that the plaintiff had filed for divorce. He also submitted that it was unfeasible for the plaintiff to expect the defendant to maintain his spousal obligations to the plaintiff when she had been carrying on extra-marital affairs with other men before re-marrying.

The court acknowledged that the parties' marriage was in an irreparable state and no longer constituted a joyful and everlasting domestic life, per art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life, per art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years, and ongoing conflict.

This fatwa states that, pursuant to the information collated from nine books on Ahmadiyya, the Indonesian Council of Ulama (Majelis Ulama Indonesia) has determined that Ahmadiyya is a religious congregation (jama'ah) outside of Islam that is misled and misleading. The fatwa acknowledges that Jemaat Ahmadiyah is a recognised legal entity in the jurisdiction of the Republic of Indonesia, but that for Muslims it has resulted in:

1. disquiet, because its teachings are contrary to Islamic teachings;
2. disunity, especially in regards to prayer (shalat), marriage (munakahat), etc; and
3. a threat to state order and security.

The court acknowledged that, based on the facts of the preceding interlocutory decision, the parties' marriage had been quarrelsome since April 2015. This was because the respondent had demanded that the applicant spend beyond his means. Moreover, the respondent had often asked the applicant for a divorce. Despite the respondent's absence, 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 for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 500,000 for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted).

The parties were married on 8 January 2007 and had one child aged 9. Their marriage had been harmonious until 2013, after which it had become quarrelsome because of the defendant's:

1. frequent unwarranted jealousy and accusations that the plaintiff was having an extra-marital affair; and
2. inability to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial allowance.

Problems escalated in July 2015, which resulted in the parties separating. The plaintiff produced two witnesses who provided information that corroborated with her submissions. Despite the defendant's absence, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 21 July 1998 and had four children. The plaintiff submitted that the first 16 years of the parties' marriage had been harmonious but, since December 2014, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had had an extra-marital affair with another woman; and
2. rarely provided the plaintiff with any financial support.

Problems then escalated in August 2016 when the plaintiff learned that the defendant had married another woman. As a result, the parties had been sleeping in separate beds, and, the plaintiff submitted, that the most feasible option available to the parties was irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in sughra). After receiving counsel from the court, however, the plaintiff opted to withdraw her application, while both parties said they would endeavour to reconcile their differences.

The applicant submitted that he and the respondent were married on 5 February 2004. The respondent, however, was unable to fall pregnant, and the applicant submitted that he intended to marry another woman in order that he could have a child. Moreover, his IDR 4.3 million per month salary was sufficient to meet the needs of both his current and prospective wives, as well as any future children.

In acceding to the applicant's request, the court acknowledged that the reasons and criteria for polygamy contained in arts 4(2) and 5(1) in Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage had been met. The court also cited verse 3 of Surah An-Nisa' from the Qur'an, which permits a man to take up to four wives.

The applicant submitted that he and the respondent were married on 10 September 1992 and had three children. The parties' first child was born with a mental handicap. The respondent then gave birth to triplets but only two of the triplets survived. After giving birth to the triplets, the respondent was no longer able to conceive. Having had three sons, however, the applicant wished to have a daughter. After obtaining what the applicant submitted to the court was the respondent's consent in writing to his taking another wife, the applicant now sought the court's permission to do so.

The court dismissed the application, however, when the respondent submitted orally that she had never provided the aforementioned written consent. Accordingly, the court found that the applicant's request had failed to meet the necessary requirements contained in art 5(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 58(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The applicant submitted that he and the respondent were married on 5 January 1991 and had two children. The respondent, however, subsequently suffered from a heart condition, shortness of breath and high blood pressure. Her health problems had prevented her from being physically intimate with the applicant, who had a heightened libido. The respondent had also consented to the applicant taking another wife to prevent him from committing adultery. The applicant submitted that his IDR 2 million per month salary was sufficient to meet the needs of both his current and prospective wives, as well as the parties' children.

In acceding to the applicant's request, the court acknowledged that the reasons and criteria for polygamy contained in arts 4 and 5 in Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage had been met. The court also cited verse 3 of Surah An-Nisa' from the Qur'an, which permits a man to take up to four wives.

The parties were married on 21 October 2009. Their apparent inability to conceive a child had caused tensions that had led the defendant to accuse the plaintiff of being infertile. As a result of the defendant's accusations, the parties had been separated for the past two years. The defendant had even divorced the plaintiff in writing on 21 October 2015. The plaintiff submitted that all the aforementioned reasons were reason enough for her to request an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

After hearing from the plaintiff's witnesses, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. The court, 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, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The applicant submitted that the parties were married on 7 May 2009. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By 2013, however, it had become disharmonious because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. did not value the applicant as her husband; and
2. frequently accused the applicant of carrying on an extra-marital affair with another woman.

The parties had been separated since 2014 and the applicant requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

In dismissing the applicant's request, the court noted that the respondent had successfully refuted the applicant's second submission. Specifically, witnesses had told the court that they had seen the applicant conducting himself in an inappropriate manner with the respondent's older sister.

The applicant submitted that the parties were married on 2 November 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff also submitted that after six months the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent:

1. was egotistical and disrespectful towards the applicant;
2. was temperamental whenever the parties would argue; and
3. no longer obeyed the applicant.

On 15 September 2016, after the respondent had rejected the applicant's advice, the parties began to sleep in separate beds.

While the applicant initially requested that the court grant him a divorce, he then requested that the court allow him to withdraw his application as the parties had already reconciled their differences. The court acceded to the plaintiff's request.

A child born out of wedlock is typically not entitled to paternity recognition in Morocco. In an unprecedented move, the First Instance Family Court in Tangiers recognized the familial relationship connecting a father to his biological daughter. The Court also required the man to pay 100,000 MAD (10,500 USD) to the child through her mother for the material and moral harms caused to the child from denial of paternity or familial relations. The defendant appealed the judgment. On October 9, 2017, the Tangiers Court of Appeals overturned the First Instance Court decision, rejecting the DNA tests and any recognition of familial relation. The Court also invalidated the lower court’s use of international conventions, explaining that the child is so foreign to her father that the possibility of their future marriage would not be overruled.

In this text,Ibn al-ʿAṭṭār (d. 339/1009) records the legal practices of Cordoban judges, drawing on a range of oriental sources including al-Ṭaḥāwī’s Kitāb al-Shurūṭ al-kabīr. In her chapter on imprecatory oaths in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, DelfinaSerrano notes that the chapters on marriage and repudiation are missing from the preserved manuscripts of this important early work, making it difficult to contrast the treatment of liʿānin Cordoban legal texts with that in sources from Toledo.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale (ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of sources and other material used in and related to the book.

The parties were married on 27 April 2008. After marrying, the parties lived happily with the applicant's parents, and had one child. The parties remained happily married until 2009, after which they began to quarrel regularly. The applicant submitted that this was because:

1. the respondent, after giving birth, would become frightened and traumatised if in the presence of the applicant (this remained the case for five years);
2. when the respondent recovered from this condition, if asked about it, she would say she would become scared if she could not please the applicant;
3. in 2010, the applicant relocated to Korea for work but maintained communication with the respondent, but when he returned to Indonesia in 2013, the respondent fell ill again.

As a result, the parties had been separated for the past five years, during which time they had not shared any physical intimacy. The applicant submitted that the marriage was beyond repair and, accordingly, requested that the court grant him a divorce.

The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surah Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to the elucidation of art 37 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of having been apart for longer than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 19 June 1992 and had three children (aged 21, 18 and 10). The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had:

1. frequently physically abused her;
2. did not take care of the plaintiff; and
3. had married another woman without the plaintiff’s approval or knowledge.

In September 2013, the defendant left the plaintiff moving the plaintiff to file for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra). While the defendant attended the first hearing, he failed to attend the subsequent hearing, despite being officially summonsed. The parties, pursuant to art 130 of Herziene Inlandsch Reglement, in conjunction with art 82 of Law No. 7 of 1989, as amended by Law No. 3 of 2006 and Law No. 50 of 2009 on Religious Courts, attended court-sanctioned mediation but failed to reconcile their differences. The defendant then agreed to the divorce but objected to the plaintiff's claim that he had physically abused the plaintiff.

The court found that the parties' marriage no longer fulfilled the purpose of marriage, as stipulated in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 341,000).

The parties were married on 14 September 2005. They had lived together in the defendant’s parents' home and had one child (aged 7). The plaintiff submitted that:

1. since the parties had married, the defendant had not provided her with any financial support;
2. economic circumstances had forced the plaintiff, in 2011, to earn a living as a migrant worker in Singapore;
3. while the plaintiff was in Singapore the parties had not communicated; and
4. when the plaintiff returned home in 2013, the defendant had not made any effort to communicate with the plaintiff, despite knowing that the plaintiff was visiting, the plaintiff having to sleep at the plaintiff’s parents' home before returning to Singapore to continue working.

The plaintiff submitted that these circumstances had led to irreconcilable disharmony in the marriage, and requested that the court grant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro).

The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surat Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to the elucidation of art 37 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce on the grounds that the parties had been apart for longer than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 3 May 1985, in accordance with Islamic tradition. They had two children, born in 1986 and 1992. The applicant claimed that, after marrying the respondent, work commitments meant that the parties had had to live separately. The respondent lived with her parents in Padang, while the applicant was always out of town in cities including Medan, Riau, and Jakarta.

The parties' marriage was harmonious for the first 15 years, but, by 2000, it had become quarrelsome. This, the applicant claimed, was due to the respondent's lack of gratitude for the spending money with which he had provided her, even though it was not always as much as the respondent had requested. Constant physical distance between the parties had also taken its toll.

Problems escalated at the beginning of 2003, and the frequency with which the parties would argue left the applicant feeling reluctant to return to the matrimonial home. As a result, the parties had lived separately for approximately the past 10 years and five months, and, in 2013, they decided to separate.

The court noted that its advice to the parties that they reconcile had been to no avail. Moreover, the respondent had no objections to the applicant's request for a divorce. Accordingly, the court, 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 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds that ongoing conflict between the parties.