SHARIAsource

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court, which had:

1. granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra);
2. granted the respondent custody of the parties' two children;
3. ordered the appellant to pay child maintenance monthly until the children are independent; and
4. stipulated the parties' joint assets were to be split 50/50, after a joint-debt of IDR 5 million had been repaid.

For all intents and purposes, the Court concurred with the decision of the lower court. It did, however, decide to prepare its own decision, amending the lower court's reference to the parties' joint-debt.

The Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the appellant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) from the respondent, but had also ordered the appellant to pay IDR 5.5 million in financial support to the respondent for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), mut'ah (divorce compensation) and maskan (accommodation). In regards to the respondent's counterclaim, the lower court had stipulated the parties' joint assets and ordered that they be split on a 50/50 basis. It also granted the respondent custody of the parties' child.

For all intents and purposes, the Court concurred with the decision of the lower court. It did, however, decide to hand down its own judgment, amending some of the formulaic errors it noted in the decision of the lower court.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Langsa Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), but granted custody of the parties' three children to the appellant, and ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant IDR 2.5 million per month in child maintenance until the children become of age. The lower court also stipulated the joint assets of the parties and ordered that they be split on a 50/50 basis.

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court, however, it found fault with the respondent's reasoning in regards to the return of a vehicle to its owner because the respondent could not afford the repayments after only paying IDR 7 million up front. The Court found that the IDR 7 million in question, which had been returned to the respondent, was a joint asset and should be split between the two parties.

The Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce and custody of the parties' two children, and ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance. The lower court also stipulated as joint assets of the parties two properties (one in Aceh, one in North Sumatra), a parcel of land, three vehicles, some household appliances, a debt of IDR 33,333,344 in the name of Yulia Fitri owed to Bank BPD, as well as a debt of IDR 36,979,175 owed to Bank BPD in the name of the appellant. The appellant was also ordered to return to the respondent that part of her dowry (mahar) that he had already used in the form of 16 grams of gold.

The Court found no fault with the lower court's decision and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

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 Bireuen Shari'a Court (lower court) had stipulated the joint assets of the parties in its decision, including a parcel of land, a vehicle, and a range of household applicances. The lower court had ordered the appellant to transfer half of those assets to the respondent, and to sell those assets that could not be transferred, instead transferring half the proceeds from those sales to the respondent.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the lower court, specifically in regards to the parcel of land. The Court held that, while the appellant had purchased the parcel of land when he was married, he did so only having just married the respondent, but more importantly, using money he had saved from having worked for his parents prior to marrying the respondent, before he had his own business and source of income.

The Court also commented that the philosophy behind art 35 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage was that marriage adds value to assets acquired collectively as husband and wife, whereas in this case, the parcel of land was not acquired under such circumstances and could therefore be distinguished from true joint assets. It found in favour of the appellant in this regard.

In regards to the parties' three children, the Court granted joint custody, but required the appellant to pay IDR 1 million per child, per month in child maintenance, until the children were independent.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Langsa Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). The lower court had also granted the appellant's counterclaim in part, ordering the respondent to pay to the appellant IDR 10 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), IDR 7.5 million for mut'ah (divorce compensation), IDR 10 million for maskan (accommodation), IDR 5 million for kiswah (clothing), as well as granting the appellant custody of the parties' three children, and ordering the respondent to pay child maintenance until all three children had become of age. The lower court also stipulated as joint assets of the parties 15 parcels of land, four vehicles and one motorcycle, as well as several debts owed to several banks.

The Court disagreed with the amount the lower court had ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant as compensation, amending the order to IDR 7.5 million for iddah, IDR 7.5 million for mut'ah, IDR 5 million for kiswah, while it overturned the order to pay IDR 10 million for maskan. It specified that the respondent pay IDR 2.5 million in child maintenance, however. It also had qualms with the lower court stipualting two particular objects as joint assets, given a third party's claim over them.

The parties were married on 16 June 1994 and had one child (born 11 November 2000). The plaintiff submitted that:

1. the marriage had deteriorated since the 2004 tsunami;
2. the defendant had stopped caring for the plaintiff;
3. the defendant had stopped taking care of his family;
4. the parties had grown apart and now took care of themselves individually; and
5. the marriage was irreparable and caused the plaintiff stress and emotional suffering.

On 2 September 2014, the plaintiff filed for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shugra) in the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court, and requested that the parties share custody of their child.

The plaintiff attended the first court session on 10 November 2014, but failed to return or send a proxy to the following sittings. The court revoked the plaintiff’s claim, ordered the registrar to remove the claim from the court listing, and ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 391,000).

The Tapaktuan Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), but had also ordered him to pay to the appellant IDR 5.4 million in madhiyah (material support), and IDR 1.8 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted). The appellant was also granted custody of the parties' child.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the lower court in order to compel the respondent to provide her with greater monetary compensation. The Court cited art 149 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, which obligates an ex-husband to provide his ex-wife with mut'ah (divorce compensation), in both object and monetary form, to the best of his means. In doing so, it increased the orders of the lower court in terms of monies payable by the respondent to the appellant to the following:

1. IDR 10.8 million (madhiyah);
2. IDR 1.8 million (mut'ah);
3. IDR 1.8 million (maskan and kiswah - accommodation and clothing); and
4. IDR 500,000 per month (child maintenance).

The applicant submitted that he and the respondent were married on 19 March 2010 and had one child, who was in the care of the respondent. The first the years of the parties' marriage had been harmonious, but since then they had become quarrelsome because the respondent was not prepared to be the wife of an Indonesian National Military (Tentara Nasional Indonesia) soldier. In June 2013, the respondent left the parties' home and the applicant's unit without the applicant's permission as her husband, or in an official capacity through the applicant's unit. The parties had remained separated since and the applicant had received dispensation as a member of the military to divorce the respondent.

The court was satisfied that the applicant had met the evidentiary burden contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, and, 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 permitted the respondent to retain custody of the parties' child.

The parties were married on 30 March 2002 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome in 2010 because the defendant:

1. had been aggressive towards the plaintiff and the parties' children;
2. had never provided the plaintiff with any attention and affection; and
3. would always drive the plaintiff out of the parties' home when they would argue.

The parties had been separated since June 2014, after the defendant left the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that she had lost hope that the parties would reunite, and that the parties' children were in the care of the plaintiff. Accordingly, she 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 court, pursuant to arts 105(a) and 156(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, also granted the plaintiff custody of the parties' child on the grounds that the child was still below the age of 12 (belum mumayyiz).

Resolution 90/7/9 (“Resolution”) cites primarily to a compendium of “research papers forwarded to the [IIFA] on the subject of AIDS” and to the Qur’an.  The Resolution addresses six different issues relevant to the treatment of individuals diagnosed with AIDS: (1) it is not necessary to isolate patients; (2) deliberate transmission of AIDS to a healthy individual is haram—Shari’a proscribed—and is “considered among the major evil sins and transgressions”; (3) abortion of a fetus by a mother infected with AIDS is impermissible; (4) it is permissible for a mother infected by AIDS to retain custody of her child and to breastfeed her child; (5) it is permissible for a wife to seek separation from a husband infected with AIDS; and (6) AIDS is considered terminal according to Shari’a when “all of its symptoms are present and the victim is no longer capable of carrying out ordinary living, and death is imminent.”

The parties were married on 10 February 2008. They lived together and had two children (aged 6 and 2). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By August 2014, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that:

1. the defendant would often not come home from work, providing no reason or explanation;
2. the defendant often pawned the parties’ household items, including her parents' car, providing no reason or explanation;
3. the defendant, since October 2014, had ceased to financially support the plaintiff;
4. the defendant had sold the title to the plaintiff’s parents' property solely for his own benefit; and
5. while the plaintiff had often financially supported the defendant in the hope he would change, he had not.

In January 2015, the plaintiff left the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the aforementioned circumstances had caused the marriage to deteriorate irreparably, and requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in shughra). The plaintiff also requested that the court grant her custody of the parties' child, and order the defendant to pay to her IDR 1,000,000 per month in child support.

While the plaintiff cooperated with the court, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding, despite having been summonsed. The court found that the marriage was irreparable and could no longer fulfil the purposes of art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and that the plaintiff’s claim satisfied the requirements of art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, in that the parties' differences were indeed irreconcilable. The court, however, did not consider the plaintiff’s claims for custody or child support because she subsequently withdrew that part of her claim. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay all court costs (IDR 316,000).

The parties were married on 19 February 1992, after which time they lived with both the applicant's parents and respondent's parents, before settling with the applicant's parents as the applicant was an only child. After the birth of their two children, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly, primarily because the applicant had wanted a third child, whereas the respondent did not. Problems escalated in May 2012 when the respondent threatened to harm the applicant if he did not leave the house. The respondent had also reported the applicant and the applicant's father to the police for physical assault, but a subsequent police investigation had revealed that her allegations were unfounded. The applicant, therefore, believed that, due to ongoing conflict between the parties, divorce, pursuant to s 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and s 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, was the only feasible option.

The respondent counterclaimed for custody of the parties' children, as well as for financial support and compensation from the applicant.

The court acceded to the applicant's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), and while it did not accede to the amount of financial compensation sought by the respondent, it did order the applicant to pay to the respondent:

1. IDR 10 million in mut'ah (divorce compensation);
2. IDR 3 million for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted); and
3. IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance.

The parties were married on 7 January 2007 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had been harmonious for the first five years, after which time it had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant would become unnecessarily jealous and accuse the plaintiff of having an extra-marital affair, and, in the event of any minor problem, hit the plaintiff. On one occasion in May 2011, the defendant returned home from work and asked the plaintiff why she was being so quiet. For no apparent reason, the defendant then grabbed the plaintiff by the throat so badly that she struggled to eat for the next week.

The plaintiff returned to her parents' home for three days following the choking incident, before returning to the parties' home, only to find that the defendant had left. In June 2011, the parties reconciled with the help of communal efforts, but this proved to be temporary. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), allow the parties' child to remain in her care, and, owing to her own impecuniosity, exempt her from any court fees.

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. It also granted her custody of the parties' child, and ordered the state to bear her court costs.

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the The People's Republic of Bangladesh (Gana Prajatantri Bangladesh), based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under Bangladesh's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has no legal status. 

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the Republic of Mauritius, based on research produced by the Library of Congress. Under Mauritius' Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has some legal status. 

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the Arab Republic of Egypt (Jumhuriyat Misr al Arabiyah), based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under Egypt's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) is the principal source of legislation. 

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 parties were married on 20 March 1993 at the Office of Religious Affairs in Plupuh, Sragen. After marrying they lived in Sukaramai, Banda Aceh, and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until 18 December 2010, after which the defendant had left the plaintiff and their children for no apparent reason. Despite searching for, as well as inquiring as to the whereabouts of, the defendant, the plaintiff had not been able to locate him. Therefore, the plaintiff sought a judicial divorce from the defendant, as well as custody of the parties' one remaining child still under the age of consent. Owing to her own impecuniosity, the plaintiff also sought dispensation from any court costs.

In 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, was no longer feasible. Moreover, that the defendant having left the plaintiff for more than two consecutive years was sufficient reason to grant a divorce, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

In regards to their child, the court found that while the child remained the joint responsibility of the parties, the plaintiff would be better placed to rear and educate him given his being underage (belum mumayyiz). This also accorded with the requirement contained in art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court emphasised its belief that a mother would be more patient and meticulous in raising the children, and that to separate them from the plaintiff would be incredibly problematic given their age. The court also cited art 59(2) of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights, which acknowledges the rights and needs of children to maintain a personal relationship with their father. Accordingly, it granted the defendant visitation rights, as well as the right to be consulted regarding his children's education and development, as contained in art 26(1) of Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection. The court also acceded to the plaintiff's request that the State bear the costs associated with the proceeding.