SHARIAsource

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 8 September 1983 by the village imam. The second applicant's older sibling had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had three children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 12 September 1994 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had a child. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The parties were married on 30 October 2007 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had deteriorated because the defendant often went out during the night very late without informing the plaintiff of his whereabouts. If the plaintiff inquired as to where the defendant had been, the defendant would become verbally abusive. Problems escalated when, in July 2010, the defendant reacted to advice from the plaintiff by threatening to physically assault her. The plaintiff was then picked up by a friend and taken to her parents' home where she had remained leading up to the proceeding. For the next year the defendant had provided the plaintiff with no financial support, and the parties had shown no regard for each another. Accordingly, the plaintiff believed divorce was the only feasible option remaining.

Despite the defendant being absent from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application. The court acknowledged witness evidence, pursuant to art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975. The court found that the parties' marriage was no longer 'joyful and enduring', as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. Therefore, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 231,000).

The parties were married on 28 November 2010 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had deteriorated because the defendant, on 5 February 2011, had left the matrimonial home never to return. The defendant provided the plaintiff with no information as to his whereabouts. The defendant left no money for the plaintiff and, by September 2013, the plaintiff was forced to move to another city to look for work. The plaintiff sought a judicial divorce, pursuant to art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

Despite the defendant being absent from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff’s application. The court acknowledged witness evidence, provided pursuant to art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975. The court found that the parties' marriage could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Therefore, pursuant art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 516,000).

The parties were married on 14 April 2009 and had no children. The applicant submitted that the marriage had deteriorated because the respondent frequently complained that the applicant's income was insufficient. On 26 September 2010, the parties separated and each went to live with their respective parents. The parties were unable to reconcile and the applicant requested the court's permission to divorce the respondent.

The court found that the parties could not reconcile their differences, pursuant to art 39(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 31(1) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 82(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989, and art 115 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and in the Qur'an, Surat Ar-Ruum, verse 21.

Therefore, pursuant to art 39(2)(f) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the applicant permission to divorce the respondent on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the applicant to pay costs (IDR 391,000).

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 14 September 2013 and had one child. Initially, they lived with the plaintiff's parents for three months in Banda Aceh, before moving to a shop rented by the plaintiff's parents out of which a mobile phone business was operated (also in Banda Aceh). The plaintiff submitted that the happiness in the marriage had begun to dissipate by January 2014 because:

1. the mobile phone business was managed poorly by the defendant's nephew, while the defendant, after spending the day socialising with his friends, would return and coerce the plaintiff into taking the day's takings to meet the parties' own domestic needs, despite not contributing to the business himself, physically assaulting her if she did not comply with his wishes;
2. the defendant would physically abuse the plaintiff while she was pregnant; and
3. the business' lack of success resulted in the plaintiff having to request money from her parents (four times per month).

Problems escalated on 19 February 2015 when the plaintiff refused to return home from an event at her parents' home with the defendant, having already been slapped several times that day by the defendant. When she refused, the parties began to quarrel while still at the event.

Accordingly, the plaintiff sought a judicial divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Goverment Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and (h) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The plaintiff also sought custody of the parties' child on the grounds that the child was under the age of 12 (belum mumayyiz), and should therefore remain with his mother, pursuant to art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, as well as IDR 3 million per month in child maintenance, pursuant to art 105(c) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

In a letter dated 15 April 2015, however, the plaintiff withdrew her application for divorce, stating that she and the defendant had reconciled their differences. The Court accepted the withdrawal, and ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 466,000).

The parties were married in Aceh Besar, in accordance with Islamic tradition, and had no children. The plaintiff's father had acted as the parties' marriage guardian (wali nikah), the dowry (mahar) was six grams of gold's worth in cash, and the plaintiff requested that the chief justice ratify the parties' nuptials in order that she might file for a judicial divorce. After two days of marriage, the defendant had left the plaintiff, never to return. Over the past seven years the plaintiff had not heard from the defendant, nor knew anything in regards to his whereabouts.

The plaintiff's application was dismissed, however, on the grounds that neither the plaintiff or defendant were in attendance. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 391,000).

The parties were married by a qadhi before two witnesses. They had one child, had never divorced, and the first applicant had not married another woman. While their marriage certificate was in the form of a declaration, they required a court determination acknowledging their marriage as it had had not been registered with the Office of Religious Affairs. This meant that the parties could not obtain a birth certificate for their child, which was required for the child to be registered for school. The parties also required the court determination in order to apply for passports so that they might leave the municipality or even the region.

Citing Bughyatul Mustarsyidin, and finding the information and evidence provided by the applicants to the court affirmed their claim, the court acceded to the applicants' request.

The parties were married on 14 February 2012. After marrying, they had lived with the plaintiff's parents for more than a year, before moving to a rental property, where they then lived for one month before separating and returning to their respective parents' homes. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had quarrelled regularly because:

1. the defendant was selfish and frequently angry for no apparent reason;
2. the defendant was aggressive and frequently hit the plaintiff;
3. the defendant frequently directed profane language at the plaintiff; and
4. the parties had already divorced three times.

Problems escalated in October 2013, resulting in the parties separating, where they had remained until the time of the proceeding. Familial efforts to reconcile the parties had proved to be only temporarily successful, and the plaintiff believed the parties' differences were irreconcilable.

Despite the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in shughra), acknowledging that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and surat Al-rum verse 21, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan warahmah) homelife was no longer feasible. Moreover, that, 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, ongoing conflict between the parties was sufficient reason to grant a divorce.

The parties were married on 3 January 2013. Their marriage was arranged by their parents, and they had never been in love with one another. While they had lived together for two months, they had never consummated their marriage. Moreover, the defendant had ordered the plaintiff to return home to Meuria Paloh, after which the defendant verbally divorced the plaintiff over the telephone. The parties had not lived together since 9 March 2013, and the plaintiff had not returned to the defendant after the defendant orally divorced her.

Despite the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in shughra), acknowledging that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and surat Al-rum verse 21, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan warahmah) homelife was no longer feasible. Moreover, that, 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, ongoing conflict between the parties was sufficient reason to grant a divorce.

The parties were married on 12 March 2001 and had three children. The defendant had lived with the plaintiff's parents for the first six months of the marriage, before relocating to Malaysia. After a period of time in Malaysia, he returned to Indonesia to bring the plaintiff with him back to Malaysia. The marriage had been harmonious up until the birth of the parties' first child in 2003, after which time it had become quarrelsome and violent. The defendant would kick and beat the plaintiff frequently, even once sadistically beating her in front of her own parents.

In an effort to stem her exposure to this physical violence, the plaintiff slept in a separate bedroom from the defendant, but the violence continued. In August 2012, the plaintiff finally left the matrimonial home and, in her application for a divorce, told the court that the purpose of marriage, being a peaceful, hopeful, and loving (sakinah, mawaddah, dan rahmah) domestic life, was no longer feasible.

While the defendant disputed the plaintiff's allegations, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, acknowledging that the marriage was beyond repair. 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, as well as verse 21 of the Qur'an, surat ar-Rum, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The appellant successfully requested that the court affirm a decision by the Bireuen Shari'a Court (Decision: 11/Pdt.G/2013/MS-Bir) to grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

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

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

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

The court, pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two years.

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

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

The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 22 October 1997 and had three children. For the first 10 years of their marriage, the parties lived in Padang, but, at the end of 2007, the defendant moved to South Tangerang, Banten, until mid-January 2010, before returning to Padang. The parties' marriage had been harmonious until mid-2007, when it then became quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. admitted to taking the parties' shop title and selling it to another company to pay off debts, unbeknownst to the plaintiff, before then absconding after the plaintiff requested that the defendant and his family come to some resolution following his dishonest conduct;
2. was unaccountable for his own actions;
3. undervalued the plaintiff's children from her first marriage;
4. was dishonest with the plaintiff; and
5. often forbade the plaintiff's daughter from being friends with other boys.

At the beginning of February 2012, the defendant accused the plaintiff's daughter of going out with a boy, leaving the home and calling the daughter telling her to return home. When the plaintiff's daughter disputed the allegations made by the defendant, the defendant became angry and used profane language with her. In mid-February 2012, the defendant left the matrimonial home without informing the plaintiff and moved to a rental property in South Tangerang. Since then the parties had remained separated, during which time the defendant had provided the plaintiff with no financial support for two years and 10 months.

The plaintiff, believing the parties marriage was irreparable, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra). The court acceded to the request, finding sufficient reason to grant a divorce, as required by art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 134 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court, 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, granted the plaintiff a divorce on the grounds of the parties being apart for more than two years, and ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 8 July 1995 and had three children (born 10 April 1996, 28 March 2002, and 2 February 2007). After they married they lived in Padang for a year, before moving to Jakarta for two years, then to Medan for six months, before finally returning to Padang. The marriage was harmonious for the first 15 years, before it became quarrelsome in mid-2010. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide enough for the plaintiff and their family;
2. was abusive towards the plaintiff's family; and
3. was known to have to have stolen money from people that lived near the parties' home, which reflected badly on the plaintiff.

The plaintiff also submitted that when the parties would argue, the defendant would use inappropriate language with her, even once hitting the plaintiff, causing her plaintiff physical and emotional suffering. Problems escalated on 23 December 2014 when the defendant appropriated IDR 21 million from another person's savings account. This left the plaintiff requesting that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), feeling as though she could no longer sustain a marriage with the defendant.

The court acceded to the request, finding sufficient reason to grant a divorce, as required by art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 22(2) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 134 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it granted the plaintiff a divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

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 24 August 2008 and had lived with the plaintiff's parents for one year and four months, before moving to a rental property in Takkalao for a year, before then living in their own home in Bojo for a month. The parties also had one child, who was, at the time of the proceeding, in the plaintiff's care. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious initially, but, by October 2008, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant had failed to sufficiently provide for the plaintiff and their child. In December 2010, the parties quarrelled when the plaintiff felt disrespected by the defendant's parents. Then, in January 2011, the plaintiff left the parties' home for her parents' home, feeling she could no longer cope with her treatment at the hands of the defendant and his parents. The parties had remained separated for the following one year and nine months, which had caused the plaintiff to suffer greatly, and to feel that divorce was the only feasible option remaining.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), citing art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, in its assessment that the parties' marriage was no longer happy and joyful, nor peaceful, hopeful and loving. The court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, based its decision on the fact that the parties had been apart for two consecutive years and ongoing conflict respectively.