SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 19 November 2011 and had one child. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. Entering their third year as husband and wife, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant would often leave their home without informing the plaintiff, not return until the middle of the night, without any legitimate excuse, and sometimes return enraged, sometimes even physically harming the plaintiff and their child.

Following Eid al-Fitr (Idul Fitri) in 2014, the parties had begun to sleep in separate beds. On several occasions, the plaintiff had reminded and counselled the defendant to treat his family well. Her advice fell on deaf ears, however, as the defendant's behaviour worsened, resulting in him leaving the plaintiff, and returning to his own parents' home. The plaintiff submitted that, in order to protect the welfare of the parties' child, as well as that of her own, and taking into account that the child was under the age of 12 (mumayyiz), she should, pursuant to art 150 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, be granted custody of the child. Moreover, that the defendant should be ordered to pay to the plaintiff IDR 5 million per month in child maintenance until the child had either reached adulthood or was independent. The plaintiff also submitted that a judicial divorce (talak satu bain sughra) was the only feasible option.

Following deliberations between the court and the plaintiff's legal representation, the plaintiff agreed to temporarily withdraw her application for divorce on the grounds that she was heavily pregnant. Accordingly, despite the defendant's absence from court, the parties remained married. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 261,000).

The parties were married on 21 May 2008 but had no children. They had lived with the plaintiff's parents for the first three nights of their marriage, before moving to the defendant's parents, where they then lived for two years and nine months. As early as October 2008, however, the plaintiff alleged that she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly because the defendant:

1. was often intoxicated and showed no signs of reforming;
2. was frequently abusive (verbally and physically) towards the plaintiff; and
3. frequently suspected the plaintiff was having an extra-marital affair.

On 6 February 2011, problems escalated when the plaintiff went to her parents' home to work on the rice padi her parents had given her. Before leaving, the plaintiff had requested the defendant's permission, but when the plaintiff returned two days later, the defendant became angry, stating that he had only granted the plaintiff permission to stay at her parents' home for one night, not two. The defendant then ordered the plaintiff to leave their home, and since then, the parties had remained separated (one year and three months). During that time, the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support. The defendant's family's efforts to make the parties reconcile were also to no avail. As a result, the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option remaining was divorce.

Based on the information before it, including witness statements, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) 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 parties were married on 10 December 2006 and had two children (born: 22 February 2008 and 9 November 2013). They had lived with the plaintiff's parents in Padang for approximately five years, before moving to the defendant's parents' home until they separated. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. After five years, however, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant had:

1. frequently brought other women home;
2. failed to show sufficient care for the plaintiff and their children; and
3. been an irresponsible husband, failing to provide enough for his family financially.

The plaintiff also submitted that whenever the parties would quarrel, the defendant would resort using profane language, which would upset the plaintiff. Familial mediation had also proven to be in vain. Problems escalated on 2 December 2014 when the plaintiff caught the defendant telephoning someone she did not know. Then the defendant became angry when the plaintiff suggested the parties collect their children from the plaintiff's parents' home, appearing to be more interested in talking to the person on his phone. This resulted in the defendant orally divorcing the plaintiff, after which the plaintiff left the plaintiff's parents' home for her own parents' home. Since then the parties had remained separated.

The plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra). 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 plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 30 March 2001, after having divorced in 1999. They had two children. Several years after remarrying, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly due to differences of opinion. The plaintiff submitted that this problem had not been insurmountable, however, as evidenced by the parties remarrying in 2001 for the sake of their children. Regardless, the parties would often quarrel, the plaintiff submitted, because the defendant had failed to appreciate her as his wife, and because the defendant would exacerbate trivial issues in order to start an argument with the plaintiff. The plaintiff also conceded that she would go quiet when the defendant would start arguing with her because she was embarrassed to be seen arguing with the defendant by the parties' children, their neighbours, and family.

For the past six years the parties had been sleeping in separate beds, after the defendant had chosen to sleep in another room. This had gravely affected the plaintiff. Problems escalated during Eid al-Fitr (Idul Fitri) in 2014 when the defendant confessed to having married another woman without the plaintiff's permission. The plaintiff learned from the defendant that his other wife lived in East Java, and that they had been married for the past two years. When given an ultimatum by the plaintiff, the defendant had chosen to maintain both marriages. As a result, the plaintiff felt there was no other course available but to divorce.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) 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 parties were married on 11 April 2006 and had two children. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. By 2011, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. would become excessively suspicious that the applicant was having an extra-marital affair; and
2. never respected the applicant as her husband.

In December 2013, the parties separated and had remained that way for approximately 15 months. The applicant requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

In response to the applicant's submissions, the respondent submitted that her suspicions were not unwarranted as the applicant had indeed secretly married (nikah siri) another woman, who was the reason the parties had remained separated since December 2013. Furthermore, the respondent submitted that the applicant would often look for a reason to become angry with her, even in front of their children. While the respondent concurred with the applicant that the parties were no longer compatible, she conceded that if the applicant were to divorce his other wife, she would welcome him back. If, however, the applicant refused to do so, the respondent sought an order granting her custody of the parties' children, requiring the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 500,000 per month in child maintenance, as well as IDR 2 million for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), as well as whatever the applicant believed appropriate to pay in mut'ah (divorce compensation).

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, granting him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The applicant also agreed to the respondent's request, and provided her with a Seiko watch as mut'ah.

The parties were married on 25 April 1997 and had two children. After marrying they had lived with the respondent's parents in Agam. The applicant submitted that, since the end of 2006, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent would go out drinking with her friends while the applicant was at work, and when the applicant confronted the respondent after seeing her drinking alcohol in a cafe, the respondent had denied any wrongdoing. Problems escalated at the end of 2008 when the applicant advised that the respondent not increase any of her debts. The respondent became angry with the applicant, forbidding him from interfering in her life. As a result, the applicant left the matrimonial home and returned to his parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the past seven years. The parties' families had not sought to make the parties reconcile, and the applicant submitted to the court that divorce (talak satu raj'i) was the only feasible option.

In her counterclaim, the respondent sought from the applicant IDR 2.5 million per month to cover costs associated with the parties' two children. The applicant submitted that he could only afford IDR 500,000 per month as his daily salary as a construction worker was only IDR 80,000.

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. It also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 1 million in child maintenance.

The parties were married on 22 February 2001 and had one child. The applicant submitted that the marriage had been harmonious for the first eight years, after which it had then became quarrelsome. The applicant submitted that the primary reason for the disharmony was the respondent's failure to fulfil her spousal obligations, such as preparing meals on time, as well as obeying the applicant's wishes. Problems escalated in August 2011 when the respondent accused the applicant of having married another woman. This resulted in the respondent leaving the parties' home and returning to her parents' home, where she then remained for six months. Communal efforts to make the parties reconcile had also been in vain. The applicant submitted that divorce (talak satu raj'i) was the only feasible option, and that the respondent concurred.

The respondent, pursuant to arts 80(4)(a), 149(b), and 152 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, submitted a counterclaim for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted) compensation and mut'ah (divorce compensation). The applicant submitted that he could only afford to provide the respondent with IDR 4 million for iddah and a prayer instrument as mut'ah.

The court acceded to both parties' requests. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Laws, it acceded to the applicant's request for a divorce (talak satu raj'i). It also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 4 million for iddah, as well as provide her with a prayer instrument as mut'ah.

The parties were married on 16 July 2006. They had no children, despite having already sought both conventional medical and alternative infertility treatment. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage, however, was only harmonious for the first two years. In February 2008, the defendant, a police officer, returned to his original post in Bogor. The parties remained in contact for the first month but from then on the defendant rarely contacted the plaintiff, other than to request that she send him money. For the past three years the parties had remained separated, the defendant providing the plaintiff with no financial or emotional support throughout their time apart.

In February 2010, the plaintiff took leave from work and went to Bogor to ask the defendant why the parties had not been in more regular contact. When the plaintiff arrived in Bogor, however, she discovered that the defendant had remarried. The plaintiff asked the defendant why he had remarried only to be told that the defendant had wished to take the burden off his new wife. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's response left her feeling bewildered. Accordingly, she requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Pursuant to 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 request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years, and ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 5 November 2005 and had one child. The applicant submitted that, since 2006, he and the respondent had quarrelled regularly because the respondent:

1. did not want to join the applicant at the applicant's place of residence; and
2. often became angry/emotional and would mention divorce, as well as ordering the applicant to marry someone else.

The respondent had left the matrimonial home and returned to her parents' home on 11 August 2010, where she had remained for the four months leading up to the proceeding. During this time the parties had not communicated.

The respondent admitted to often being angry and mentioning divorce. She justified this, however, on the grounds that every time the parties were physically intimate the applicant would say he felt like the respondent was raping him. Accordingly, the respondent told the applicant that if he was not happy with the respondent, he should divorce her and remarry. The respondent also objected to the applicant's claim that the respondent had left the matrimonial home in August 2010, stating that she had left the matrimonial home then to spend Lebaran (Eid al-Fitr) with her parents in Bulukumba. Moreover, that the applicant even accompanied the respondent to Bulukumba and stayed for a week before returning to Makassar. The respondent further alleged that the applicant was yet to return to Bulukumba because he had already married another woman, and that the parties remained in contact via telephone because of their children.

Given the parties' evident ongoing conflict, 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 applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). It also ordered the applicant, pursuant to arts 149 and 160 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to pay to the respondent IDR 300,000 per month in child maintenance, as well as IDR 1 million in mut'ah (divorce compensation) and IDR 1 million in iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted).

The parties were married on 3 March 2012 and had their first and only child on 1 June 2014. The plaintiff submitted, however, that the parties had quarrelled regularly since December 2012 because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant would take medicinal drugs that would often make him angry. On one occasion, for instance, in mid-February 2013, the plaintiff asked the defendant not to bring his friends home with him. In response, the defendant grabbed the plaintiff by the hair and put his hands around her neck.

Unbeknownst to the plaintiff at the time, the defendant had incurred a IDR 2 million debt with the owner of a travel service after failing to pay the owner at the time the service was rendered. Problems escalated when, on 25 June 2014, the plaintiff's parents inquired with the defendant as to the debt, to which the defendant still would not admit. When the plaintiff's parents asked the parties to resolve the matter on their own time, the defendant had concluded that the plaintiff's parents were telling him to leave their home. The defendant then left the parties' home, and the parties had remained separated for approximately seven months.

At the end of September 2014 the defendant spent the night with another woman, which the plaintiff learned about from the woman in question. Then, on 20 December 2014, the defendant picked up the plaintiff, unbeknownst to her parents, and brought her to his parents' home in Pesisir Selatan, West Sumatra. When the plaintiff's parents came to pick her up, the defendant threatened them with a knife. Believing her marriage to the defendant was no longer tenable, the plaintiff sought 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, acceded to the plaintiff's request, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) as envisaged by art 119(2)c of the Compilation of Islamic Laws on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 5 May 1997 in Dili, East Timor, and had two children. They lived in Dili for two years and two months before moving to Ujung Pandang, South Sulawesi, for one year and five months, before the applicant moved to Atambua in search of employment in 2001, with the respondent and their first child joining him in 2002.

The applicant submitted that the marriage had been harmonious initially, but from January 2010, it had become quarrelsome. In February 2010, the applicant saw the respondent getting a lift on the back of another man's motorcycle. Around March 2010, the applicant saw the respondent with that other man at the parties' kiosk. Problems escalated on 12 November 2010, when the respondent left the parties' home with that other man and the parties' children, without the applicant's permission or blessing, the respondent having confessed to having been physically intimate with the man.

The applicant requested that the Court grant him permission to divorce the respondent, as well as custody of the parties' two children. The Court acceded to the applicant's request for 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. As the children were both below the age of 12 years (belum mumayyiz), pursuant to art 105 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the Court would usually be required to grant the respondent custody of the children, at least until they had reached the age of 12 years, after which they could decide with which parent they wanted to live. That said, the Court noted that the parties' daughter was already in the custody of the respondent and should remain there. With regards to the parties' son, who had been in the care of the applicant, while he was not year 12 years of age, as the respondent did not object to his remaining in the care of the applicant, the Court found it preferable for him to remain in the applicant's care.

The applicant, Suryani, requested that the Constitutional Court review the constitutionality of art 49 (and its elucidatory statement) of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary. Article 49 of Law No. 7 of 1989 states: 'Religious courts are tasked and authorised to investigate, determine, and resolve cases in the first instance between persons of the Islamic faith in the areas of: a. marriage (perkawinan); b. inheritance (waris); c. wills (wasiat); d. gifts (hibah); e. endowments (wakaf); f. alms-giving (zakat); g. infaq; h. shadaqah; and i. shari'a economy (ekonomi syari'ah). The applicant submitted that art 49 circumscribed his constitutional right to freedom of religion and to practise that religion in accordance with that religion's teachings, as guaranteed by arts 28E(1), 28I(1) and (2), and 29(1) and (2) of the Constitution.

In dismissing the application, Justice Moh. Mahfud MD, on behalf of the court, noted that the applicant's submissions were incompatible with the relationship between the state and religion in Indonesia. Specifically, Moh. Mahfud MD held that Indonesia is not a country based on one religion, nor is it a secular state that transfers religious affairs to the individual and society. Rather, Indonesia is a state based on the belief in Almighty God (ber-Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa), which protects every person's right to practise their respective religion. In abiding by the Indonesian state philosophy of Pancasila ('five principles'), national law must, therefore, guarantee state ideology and territorial integrity, while facilitating just and courteous religious tolerance. It follows that Indonesian national law is a vehicle for national unity and that the Indonesian state is not based on majoritarianism or minoritarianism, ethnicity or race. While it can be said that Islamic law constitutes a source of national laws, it is not the sole source thereof, with customary (adat) law, Western law, and other traditional legal sources also serving as sources of national law.

The parties were married on 18 November 2005 and had two children (born 2006 and 2007). The cassation respondent had submitted that the parties were not suitable from the beginning and that they had quarrelled regularly because:

1. the cassation applicant would often return home very late without reason, even during her pregnancy with the parties’ first child, a time when the cassation respondent most needed support from the cassation applicant;
2. the cassation applicant seldom provided financial support, and what he did provide was insignificant considering his salary as a member of council (anggota dewan);
3. when living with the cassation applicant in the cassation applicant’s parents’ home, the cassation respondent felt unsafe because she was often left alone with the cassation applicant’s brothers;
4. when the cassation respondent raised the issue of financially supporting the marriage, the cassation applicant would hit and verbally abuse her;
5. when the cassation respondent finally left the cassation applicant and lived with her parents, when she tried to return to live with the cassation applicant, the fighting would reoccur, with the cassation applicant often intoxicated;
6. the cassation applicant often slandered the cassation respondent’s family.

The physical abuse continued and, on 29 November 2008, the cassation applicant attended the cassation respondent's place of work, where he hit and kicked the cassation respondent, resulting in her being hospitalised with an injury and bruising to her leg. The level of abuse peaked on 24 October 2009, when the cassation applicant struck the cassation respondent in the head several times. Fearing for her welfare and that of the children, the cassation respondent locked herself and the parties' children in a bedroom and escaped out a window, fleeing for her parents’ home. The cassation respondent then attempted to file a report with the local police, but subsequently withdrew it because, as a member of council (anggota dewan), he was a public figure. On 4 November 2009, the cassation respondent eventually attempted to file for divorce in the Semarang Religious Court. During the process, however, the cassation applicant made amends and declared his love for the cassation respondent. The cassation respondent subsequently withdrew her application and the parties attempted to reconcile. On 23 April 2011, the parties had an argument and the cassation applicant declared that he wanted to divorce the cassation respondent and focus on his career in public office. The cassation respondent returned to the cassation respondent’s parents’ home but the divorce was not properly concluded. On 24 November 2011, the cassation applicant was arrested by the Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi) and reported in the mass media. The cassation respondent alleged that the cassation applicant's conduct had caused her and their children psychological damage and distress, and that the marriage was no longer tenable.

The cassation respondent, in the first instance, had requested that the local religious court terminate the marriage and grant her custody of the children, as well as to order the cassation applicant to pay court costs. The lower court (830/Pdt.G/2012/PA.Smg), pursuant to art 39(f) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the cassation respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, and custody over the children with visiting rights to the cassation applicant. The lower court, however, ordered the cassation respondent to pay court costs (IDR 491,000).

The cassation applicant lodged an appeal with the Semarang High Religious Court. The Semarang High Religious Court (091/Pdt.G/2013/PTA.Smg) upheld the lower court's judgment and ordered the cassation applicant to pay court costs (IDR 150,000).

On 2 January 2014, the cassation applicant submitted a request for cassation to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Semarang High Religious Court had not applied the law properly, that there were inadequacies and contradictions in the witness statements, that the cassation respondent was having an extra-marital affair with another man, that the children needed a father figure, and that it was his responsibility to be head of the household. The cassation applicant also submitted to the court that he was concerned the cassation respondent was not fit to have custody of the children.

Pursuant to art 30 of Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, as amended by Law No. 5 of 2004 and Law No. 3 of 2009, the court upheld the decision of the Semarang High Religious Court, dismissed the cassation applicant’s reasons for cassation, and ordered him to pay court costs (IDR 500,000).

The parties were married on 28 July 2001 and had two children. At the beginning of their marriage, they had agreed to live in a home owned by the applicant in Bogor. When the respondent was seven-months pregnant with their first child, however, the parties agreed to move to the respondent's parents' home in Bekasi. Initially, when the parties would have a disagreement, the applicant thought it was fleeting and merely part and parcel of domestic life. The applicant preferred to concede defeat, rather than perpetuate further disagreement and quarrelling. Since their third year of marriage, however, the applicant submitted that the parties quarrelled regularly and were no longer compatible. The applicant submitted that this was due to:

1. a difference of opinion between the parties;
2. the respondent not being able to adopt the lifestyle of the applicant, as required in order for the applicant to earn a living;
3. the respondent not fulfilling the applicant's requests to meet his physical needs while their first child was between the age of 4-18 months;
4. the respondent not fulfilling the applicant's requests to meet his physical needs for 12 months after she was four-months pregnant with their second child;
5. after a while, the applicant himself no longer wanting to be physically intimate with the respondent because he no longer loved her;
6. the applicant having suggested to the respondent after the birth of their first child that they no longer live with the respondent's parents so that they could become more independent, and so that the applicant could feel more comfortable and free to do as he pleased without the respondent's parents present;
7. the applicant finally being able to convince the respondent that they should purchase their own home not too far from her parents' home; and
8. having their own home meant the applicant could invite family and relatives to their home whenever he chose.

The applicant conceded that as the parties' children were under the age of 12 (not yet mumayyiz), they should remain in the custody of the respondent, but that he would provide financial support for their schooling and living expenses. The applicant was also prepared to provide the respondent with IDR 6 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted) and IDR 1 million in mut'ah (divorce compensation). The applicant also specified as joint assets of the parties a house in Bekasi and a 2010 Proton Exora vehicle.

The respondent conceded many of the points of the applicant's claim, but submitted that the applicant had been duplicitous, by engaging commercial sex workers and other women for sex (zina), since 2003. The respondent also submitted that one month into her first pregnancy she had been ordered by her obstetrician to stay in bed for two weeks after she had experienced some bleeding associated with the pregnancy. This had caused her to want to avoid being physically intimate with the applicant, rather than any desire not to value her husband. At the time of giving birth to their first child, the respondent had also experienced trauma and further bleeding, which had continued to haunt her. When the respondent had begun to overcome this physical and psychological trauma, the applicant was no longer interested in being physically intimate with the respondent. Moreover, at the time, the respondent would never have guessed that the applicant was being duplicitous.

The court found that ongoing conflict between the parties satisfied the sufficient reason requirement to grant the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), per 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 25 August 2008 (NB: the court's findings state they were married on 21 August 2008) and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that eight months into her first pregnancy the parties had quarrelled and the defendant had grabbed and pushed her to the floor with utter disregard. At the time, the plaintiff reported the defendant to the authorities for acts of domestic violence, however, the defendant fled for Bombana in search of gold and his parents. The plaintiff's parents advised her to reconcile with the defendant and to withdraw her police report, which the plaintiff did for the sake of the parties' marriage.

In 2011, the parties appeared to have reconciled their differences, already having had their first child. The defendant then proceeded to have an extra-marital affair with another woman, while choosing to spend all his income on this other woman and none on the plaintiff. The plaintiff also submitted that during an encounter with the other woman, she had learned that the defendant had been carrying on this extra-marital affair while the plaintiff was pregnant.

The defendant had also been incarcerated for transporting petroleum. Upon his release from prison, the plaintiff began working at Kredit Colombus (a credit company) to make ends meet. When the defendant, however, forbid her from working the parties had begun to quarrel again. The plaintiff submitted that their disputes were also the result of the defendant:

1. demanding that the plaintiff return to him the spending money with which he had provided her, if he himself had run out of money;
2. forbidding, and becoming angry with, the plaintiff from working to pay for domestic household needs;
3. damaging the plaintiff's belongings and that of the household when he became angry;
4. physically assaulting the plaintiff when he became jealous for no established reason;
5. often threatening the plaintiff, causing her great fear and trauma;
6. regularly instructing the plaintiff to divorce him; and
7. controlling the parties' finances and only providing the plaintiff with money when she needed/requested it.

While the parties' families had endeavoured to make the parties reconcile, following Eid Mubarak in 2014, the plaintiff left the defendant and returned to her parents' home, where she had remained until the time of the court proceeding. During that time, the defendant continued to terrorise and threaten the plaintiff, leaving the plaintiff with no other option but to seek an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra). The plaintiff also sought custody of the parties' two young children, as well as IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance until the children were adult and independent.

The court deferred to expert Islamic legal opinion in Kitab Ia'natul Thalibin Juz III, which dictates that a court is to grant a wife a divorce if she is no longer happy with her husband. Moreover, citing art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 65 of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, and art 5 of Law No. 23 of 2004 on the Abolition of Domestic Violence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. In its findings, however, it did not explicitly accede to the plaintiff's request for child maintenance payments.

The parties were married on 25 February 1998 and had their one and only child on 28 June 1998. In March 1999, the defendant left for Malaysia to work for two years, returning in March 2001, when he then lived at the plaintiff's parents' home for approximately three months. In June 2001, the plaintiff left to work in Taiwan and returned around December 2002. Then in June 2003, the defendant left for Malaysia for another two years to work, returning in June 2005, where he then lived with the plaintiff for approximately 10 months. In April 2006, the plaintiff left for Hong Kong to work for more than three years, returning on 14 November 2009.

Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. In June 2005, however, or since the defendant had returned from Malaysia, the parties had quarrelled regularly, largely because the defendant had only sent the plaintiff money on three occasions. Moreover, upon returning to Indonesia, the defendant refused to work, and the plaintiff could only find work as a waiter at a soto roadside stall (warung). To meet their domestic needs, in April 2006, the plaintiff returned to Hong Kong to work. During this time the defendant had begun to expect that the plaintiff would send money home on a monthly basis. When the plaintiff returned on 14 November 2009, she discovered that the defendant had sold her gold jewellery, as well as their Honda motorcycle. Moreover, the defendant forbade the plaintiff from seeking financial assistance from the defendant's parents, which caused the parties to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff was concerned that the defendant was not being entirely truthful with him. Feeling that their differences were irreconcilable, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce.

Pursuant to art 34(1) 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, as well as Kitab Fiqhus Sunnah Jilid II, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), and ordered her to adhere to 90 days of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted) before marrying again, pursuant to art 39(1)b of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 516,000).

The parties were married on 20 February 2004 and had two children, both of whom were now in the care of the respondent. The applicant submitted that, since June 2013, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent had failed to appreciate the applicant as her husband, often insulting and shaming him, as well as arguing with him. Problems escalated on 7 August 2013, resulting in the parties separating.

The respondent submitted, in response, that much of her behaviour and poor treatment of the applicant was in response to the applicant having had extra-marital affairs since the respondent was pregnant. In compensation for the applicant being granted a divorce, the respondent sought IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance, IDR 6 million for iddah (three-month period following divorce), as well as IDR 150 million for the construction of the parties' home in Panaikang, Pangkep, South Sulawesi, or that the home be registered in the name of the parties' two children. The applicant was content with the parties' children remaining in the respondent's care, but submitted that IDR 500,000 per month in child maintenance, IDR 1.5 million for iddah, and IDR 5 million for the home was sufficient.

The court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), 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. It granted the respondent custody of the parties' children, however, while ordering the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance, IDR 3 million for iddah, and IDR 5 million in regards to the construction of the home, as the parties had only contributed IDR 10 million towards its construction collectively. It also noted that information provided by witnesses corroborated to suggest that the applicant had indeed been having extra-marital affairs.

The parties were married on 2 April 2015, after which they lived with the respondent's parents in Agam for approximately one week, before moving to a rental property. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for a mere 10 days before the respondent frequently became angry with the applicant for coming home late from work.

Problems escalated at the end of June 2015 when the respondent accused the applicant's child of groping the applicant's genitals while the applicant was sleeping. The applicant refused to believe the respondent's accusation, while the applicant's child similarly denied it. The respondent, however, remained steadfast in her accusation leading to the parties arguing and, the following day, the applicant took the respondent to her parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the next two months. Familial intervention had failed to reunite the parties, and the applicant sought the court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

As a counterclaim, the respondent sought IDR 2.5 million to cover her expenses for the two-month period the parties had been separated leading up to the proceeding. Furthermore, for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), the respondent sought IDR 3 million, and for mut'ah (divorce compensation) 2.5 grams (1 mas) of 24-carat gold. The applicant submitted that he could only afford the following:

1. IDR 600,000 for the two months the parties were separated;
2. IDR 500,000 for iddah; and
3. one 24-carat gold ring with a weight of 0.625 grams (one-quarter of a mas).

The court acceded to the applicant'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. With regards to the respondent's counterclaim, the court ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent the following:

1. IDR 600,000 for the two months the parties were separated;
2. IDR 900,000 for iddah; and
3. one 24-carat gold ring with a weight of 1.25 grams (one-half of a mas).

The parties were married on 12 January 2001 and had one child. The applicant submitted that, by the beginning of 2014, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent had:

1. undervalued the applicant as her husband by, for example, not being at home when the applicant would return home for lunch, without first requesting the applicant's permission, and becoming angry when the applicant would confront the respondent about this; and
2. undervalued the applicant's family, frequently refusing to meet members of the applicant's family when they would visit.

Problems escalated at the end of 2014 when the respondent, for no apparent reason, refused to lend the applicant money to assist with his sale of daily items, despite the fact that the applicant had helped the respondent purchase bananas to be taken to market for sale. After the ensuing argument, the applicant left the respondent for his parents' home, where he had remained for the eight months leading up to the proceeding. The applicant had, however, continued to provide financial support for the parties' child. The applicant, accordingly, sought the court's permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent.

Other than refuting many of the applicant's submissions, the respondent also counterclaimed for the following:

1. IDR 4.5 million for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted);
2. a prayer (shalat) instrument as mut'ah (divorce compensation); and
3. IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance.

The applicant, in response, claimed he could only afford the following:

1. IDR 500,000 for iddah;
2. a prayer instrument as mut'ah; and
3. IDR 1.5 million in child maintenance.

The court acceded to the applicant'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. With regards to the respondent's counterclaim, the court ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent the following:

1. IDR 2 million for iddah;
2. a prayer instrument as mut'ah; and
3. IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance.

Prior to marrying on 21 December 2010, the parties had agreed that the plaintiff would move to South Aceh once she had completed her degree at the Indonesian Higher Education Management Institute (Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Manajemen Indonesia), Meulaboh, in a year's time. The plaintiff submitted, however, that after the parties had married and begun building a home together, the defendant had said he wanted to divorce the plaintiff. In April 2011, it became apparent that the defendant had misled the plaintiff and her family about where he had been living prior to marrying the plaintiff. On 17 April 2011, at 8:30pm, the defendant sent the plaintiff a text message stating that the plaintiff was no longer his wife and that she was welcome to file for a divorce with the shari'a court in Meulaboh. The plaintiff also submitted that, while the parties were married, the defendant had failed to provide her with any financial support, while denigrating her and her family.

After having not returned home for two months, the defendant returned to apologise, vowing to mend his ways. The parties attended the local office of religious affairs on 4 July 2011, the parties executing a promissory document, the contents of which stated that the defendant agreed to meet all the financial and emotional needs of the plaintiff, vowing not to treat the plaintiff in an appropriate manner again. The defendant, however, failed to abide by the contents of the document. Moreover, he then sent the plaintiff and plaintiff's father a text message saying he would file for a divorce with the local shari'a court. This caused the plaintiff great emotional suffering and moved her to file for 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 on Marriage, 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.