SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 22 July 2005. The plaintiff submitted that, since June 2009, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. This was a result of the defendant:

1. never working and not being able to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial support, resulting in the plaintiff relocating to Malaysia for work to meet the parties' joint needs; and
2. already having a child with another woman, but the plaintiff not knowing the identity of this other woman, and only knowing about the child from the defendant's family and members of the public having seen him with this other woman.

In November 2009, believing their problems were irreconcilable, the plaintiff left the defendant and returned to her parents' home after no longer being able to cope with the poor way in which the defendant was treating her. The defendant also failed to attend court, despite having been summonsed formally.

The court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba'in Sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, and that the parties had been separated for more than two years, per art 19(f) and (b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) and (b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 13 May 2004. The plaintiff submitted that after 10 years and one month the parties separated in June 2014, and had remained so until the proceeding. The reasons for the breakdown of the parties' marriage included:

1. a difference in principles and way of thinking, including the defendant not allowing the plaintiff to work outside the home;
2. the plaintiff not being allowed to work outside the home despite the fact that the defendant's salary could not meet their daily needs; and
3. the defendant providing the plaintiff with no financial and emotional support.

Despite having been summonsed formally, the defendant had failed to attend the proceeding. Regardless, 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 parties were married on 12 January 1979. By mid-1995, however, their relationship had become strained. The applicant submitted that this was in large part due to the respondent often accusing the applicant of having an extra-marital affair, despite the applicant reassuring her that he never had, as well as the respondent showing a general lack of care and respect for the applicant. Problems escalated in October 2000 when the respondent, still accusing the applicant of being unfaithful, instructed the applicant to leave their home. The parties had remained separated since and the applicant believed their differences were irreconcilable.

The court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), on the grounds of ongoing conflict, and that the parties had been separated for more than two years, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) and (b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and (b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 30 January 2009. The plaintiff submitted that, in 2011, the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was the result of the defendant:

1. being ambivalent towards domestic matters and needs;
2. often going out at night and rarely being at home;
3. becoming romantically involved with another woman; and
4. providing the plaintiff with insufficient financial support, forcing her to rely on financial assistance from her parents to meet her daily needs.

Problems escalated on 21 July 2013 when the plaintiff first discovered that the defendant had been having an extra-marital affair. When the plaintiff inquired about the defendant's extra-marital affair, the defendant reacted strongly and verbally divorced the plaintiff. On 30 July 2013, the parties agreed to divorce and had lived separately since.

Despite being summonsed formally, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding. Regardless, the court found that ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was sufficient reason to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The parties were married on 2 April 2000 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, after 12 years of marriage, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly. This was the result of:

1. the plaintiff often catching the defendant telephoning other women;
2. the defendant often directing profanities at the plaintiff; and
3. the defendant not providing the plaintiff with adequate financial support, meaning the defendant had to sell daily items to meet the parties' children's needs.

The defendant refuted the allegation that he had telephoned other women, submitting that, in actual fact, the plaintiff had been involved with another man via Facebook when the defendant went to Pekanbaru. Moreover, while he acknowledged that he had directed profanities at the plaintiff, he disputed the frequency with which he had done so as alleged by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff further alleged that problems escalated in October 2013, resulting in the plaintiff leaving the matrimonial home. The parties had remained separated since. The defendant argued that the actual reason the plaintiff left was because she had asked to return to her village to seek medical treatment.

Due to evident ongoing conflict between the parties, 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 bain sughra).

The parties were married on 16 August 2013. The plaintiff submitted that, as early as September 2013, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. This was the result of:

1. the defendant's parents meddling in the parties' domestic affairs, and their appearing not to like the defendant;
2. the defendant directing profanities at the plaintiff when the plaintiff would counsel him; and
3. the defendant not providing the defendant with enough financial support, even once saying to the plaintiff: 'kan lah di agiah makan tu, makan tu la nafkah ma (I've given you food, eat it).'

Problems escalated in March 2014 when the plaintiff felt their problems were irreconcilable, and while the defendant's parents continued to meddle in the parties' domestic affairs. The plaintiff left the matrimonial home and the parties had been separated since. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), 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.

The plaintiff submitted that she and the defendant had been happily married for 22 years. Around the middle of 2012, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. This was the result of the defendant:

1. often gambling, despite the plaintiff asking him to stop;
2. accusing the plaintiff of being unfaithful, for no apparent reason; and
3. not working, causing the plaintiff to have to sell construction parts to meet their daily needs.

Problems escalated in July 2014 when the defendant accused the plaintiff of having an extra-martial affair with another man. Despite the plaintiff assuring the defendant she had done nothing of the sort, the defendant did not believe the plaintiff and instead struck her in the face. The defendant then drove the plaintiff to her parents' home and, since then, the parties had lived separately.

The court found that ongoing conflict between the parties, 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, was sufficient reason to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (thalak satu bain shughra).

The parties were married on 4 February 1994 and had one child born on 20 October 1996. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since February 1996, the parties' marriage had become fractured. This was the result of the defendant:

1. never providing the defendant with financial support;
2. often directing profanities at the plaintiff, leaving the plaintiff feeling deeply hurt;
3. physically abusing the plaintiff; and
4. threatening the plaintiff with divorce.

Problems escalated in December 2012, resulting in the parties separating. Any and all physical intimacy between the parties also ceased. The parties' families had counselled them to reconcile, but to no avail.

The defendant failed to attend court, despite having been summonsed formally. Regardless, 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 sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 21 March 2001 and had three children. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been disharmonious since July 2013 because:

1. the applicant could no longer fulfil the emotional and material needs of the respondent;
2. the respondent did not perceive the applicant to be a good head of the family;
3. the respondent did not value or take heed of the appellant's advice;
4. the respondent felt the applicant was too controlling;
5. the applicant felt denigrated and belittled by the respondent;
6. the respondent's family meddled in the parties' domestic affairs; and
7. the respondent had already left the parties' home without saying anything or requesting the applicant's permission.

The parties had lived separately since August 2013 and had not been physically intimate with each other since September 2013. Before the court, however, the applicant requested that his application for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) be withdrawn. The court, pursuant to art 54 of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, acceded to the applicant's request.

The parties were married on 25 September 2005 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly since October 2010. This was a result of, among other things:

1. the parties not being able to agree on how to manage their finances;
2. the plaintiff no longer being able to be physically intimate with the defendant due to her own mental health issues;
3. the parties holding different views on how to educate their children; and
4. the parties no longer communicating.

The plaintiff claimed that she had already tried to work with her family and the defendant to save the marriage, but to no avail. Judicial mediation was similarly unsuccessful. The plaintiff, however, then made a verbal request before the court that her application be withdrawn. Pursuant to art 54 of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, noting that the defendant had no objections.

The parties were married on 3 March 2013 and had no children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that she and the defendant had only been married for one year before they had begun to quarrel regularly. Their quarrelling, she submitted, had resulted from:

1. the plaintiff always having to ask the defendant for financial support;
2. the plaintiff always having to ask the defendant to be physically intimate with her, given her responsibility to her mother and younger siblings to have a child;
3. the defendant not acknowledging the plaintiff's responsibilities to her own family, of which she was the backbone;
4. the defendant not caring about the plaintiff's daily living expenses, including rent payments, which the plaintiff would cover herself; and
5. the defendant lacking initiative and responsibility towards the plaintiff.

The court, pursuant to art 39 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 (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 25 September 2005 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, at the beginning of 2006, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff claimed the primary causes therein were:

1. the defendant's alcohol consumption and gambling addiction;
2. the defendant's violent treatment of the plaintiff and their three children;
3. the defendant's self-confessed infidelity; and
4. the defendant not having provided the plaintiff or their children with financial or emotional support since July 2014.

Both parties' families had endeavoured to make the parties reconcile their differences, but to no avail. Indeed, despite being summonsed, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to art 39 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 (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court did not, however, specifically accede to the plaintiff's demand that the defendant pay child maintenance.

The parties were married on 24 February 2002 and had two children. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. The applicant submitted that, in around 2013, however, the respondent had started to show a lack of respect for applicant as the head of the household. Moreover, that the respondent would often leave the house without first seeking the applicant's permission, and that the respondent would secretively receive telephone calls from other people. The disharmony between the applicant and respondent peaked on 20 March 2013 when the applicant caught the respondent secretively on the telephone. When the applicant inquired as to with whom she was talking, the respondent immediately became angry and commenced hitting the applicant. Following this incident, the applicant returned to his parents' home. The applicant and respondent had lived separately for two months without any communication and attempts to reconcile had been in vain.

Despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) 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 4 September 2000 and had three children. They had lived together with one of the defendant's uncles in Samarinda for approximately three years, before moving to live with another of the defendant's uncles in West Java for four years. From there they loved to Simoro village, where they had lived up until the time of the proceeding. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious, however, by February 2006, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant:

1. had debts of which the plaintiff was unaware;
2. would drink excessively and sometimes even slap the plaintiff;
3. had been having an extra-marital affair since the birth of the parties' third child; and
4. had failed to provide for the plaintiff since the birth of the parties' third child.

When problems escalated the defendant left the matrimonial home. 

The court found that a sufficient reason to grant an irrevocable divorce, as required by art 119(2)(c) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, that being ongoing conflict, existed. Therefore, it acceded to the plaintiff's request, 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 6 February 2012, after which time they had lived together with the plaintiff's parents. The parties had no children. The plaintiff submitted that by February 2013 the marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. would not provide for the plaintiff due to his own jealousy;
2. could not be physically intimate with the plaintiff due to his own sexual impotence; and
3. had failed to provide for the plaintiff for one year and nine months.

When problems escalated in February 2013 the defendant left the matrimonial home.

The court found that a sufficient reason to grant an irrevocable divorce, as required by art 119(2)(c) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, that being ongoing conflict, existed. Therefore, it acceded to the plaintiff's request, 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 8 February 2010 and had a child who passed away at the age of 3. By the end of 2011 they had begun to quarrel regularly because the respondent intended to move to Malaysia to work, despite the applicant's reluctance to give her his blessing, and that upon the respondent's return to Indonesia in July 2014, she had chosen to stay with her parents rather than return to the applicant. 

The applicant submitted that the parties' differences were irreconcilable and, accordingly, requested a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). 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 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 a divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 24 May 2009. They lived together happily with the applicant's parents for five years and four months, but had no children. Since October 2010, however, the parties had begun to quarrel because, due to a cervical tumor, the respondent was unable to fall pregnant. The applicant submitted that this caused him to suffer greatly, and to feel that the parties could no longer remain married. Moreover, the parties had been separated since September 2014, during which time, they had shared no physical intimacy.

The applicant submitted that the parties' differences were irreconcilable and, accordingly, requested a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). 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(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted a divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 8 June 2010 and had one child. The applicant submitted that, by March 2012, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent:

1. would ignore and oppose the applicant's advice;
2. was frequently unnecessarily jealous;
3. failed to appreciate what the applicant would provide her with; and
4. frequently requested that the applicant divorce her.

Problems escalated and, by October 2014, the parties were sleeping in separate beds. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the applicant requested that the Court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raji).

Despite the respondent's absence from court, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the Court acceded to the applicant's request, 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.

The parties were married on 18 December 1998 before an official marriage registrar from the local Office of Religious Affairs. Over a six-year period, the parties lived with the applicant's parents, and then with the respondent's grandmother. The parties also had one child.

In December 2004, the applicant went to Japan to work. Then, one day in 2006, the respondent left the parties' residence in Blitar without informing the applicant. For the next seven years and 11 months, up until the date of the proceeding, the applicant remained unaware of the respondent's whereabouts. As the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years, the applicant requested that the the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

In the respondent's absence, the court acceded to the applicant's request, pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 13 May 2005 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious initially, but, since September 2010, it had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant had failed to provide for his family.

In July 2013, the defendant left the matrimonial home never to return. parties were sleeping in separate beds, and by March 2014, the defendant had left the matrimonial home. Despite the plaintiff's efforts, she was unable to locate the defendant up until the time of the proceeding. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, 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.