SHARIAsource

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 applicant's husband, Usman bin Abd. Latif, passed away in 2001 due to illness. He and the applicant had married in 1955 in Baiturrahim Mosque in Beutong, Labuhan Haji Timur, South Aceh, and had five children. Usman had worked as a farmer his whole life and never had a steady income. The applicant did not hold a certified marriage certificate, however, which she needed in order to apply for a passport so that she could embark on the hajj. Therefore, she requested that the court ratify her marriage.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court found that the applicant's marriage to the deceased met the requirements of marriage according to Islam, as enunciated in art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, it met the requirements of art 7(3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, in that the marriage took place prior to the enactment of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The applicant married her husband in 1961, in accordance with Islam, before having six children. While they were related by blood, their relationship was not forbidden under Islam as they had not shared a wet-nurse, nor were there any objections to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicant's husband passed away due to illness on 24 May 2011, however, as they had never received an official marriage certificate because the marriage took place in 1961, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, the applicant could not access her deceased husband's pension, to which she was entitled. The applicant, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of her marriage.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court noted that the marriage had met the witness requirement (two witnesses), pursuant to arts 24 and 26 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the marriage guardian requirement, pursuant to art 19 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the dowry requirement (mahar), pursuant to art 30 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

In 1952, the applicants were married in accordance with Islamic law at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's father served as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), two witnesses were present, and the dowry was a 10-acre ricefield purchased with cash. The applicants were second cousins, however, this did not preclude them from marrying according to Islam or current laws. Moreover, the applicants had never shared a wet-nurse, nor did anyone object to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicants, however, had never received an official marriage certificate because their marriage had taken place in 1952, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The applicants, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of their marriage in order to access state subsidies such as the pension.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court noted that the marriage had met the requirements that there be two witnesses present, that there be a marriage guardian present, and that their be a dowry. Therefore, for the purposes of art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 7(1), (2) and (3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the applicants were lawfully husband and wife.

In 1972, the applicants were married in accordance with Islamic law at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's father served as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), two witnesses were present, and the dowry was a bicycle purchased with cash. The applicants were first cousins, however, this did not preclude them from marrying according to Islam or current laws. They subsequently had three children. Moreover, the applicants had never shared a wet-nurse, nor did anyone object to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicants, however, had never received an official marriage certificate because their marriage had taken place in 1972, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The applicants, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of their marriage in order to access state subsidies such as the pension.

Acceding to the applicants' request, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, noted that as the marriage had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, it qualified as the type of marriage that could be ratified.

In 1959, the applicants were married in accordance with Islamic law at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's father served as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), two witnesses were present, and the dowry was a 10 acre property. The applicants were second cousins, however, this did not preclude them from marrying according to Islam or current laws. They subsequently had three children. Moreover, the applicants had never shared a wet-nurse, nor did anyone object to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicants, however, had never received an official marriage certificate because their marriage had taken place in 1959, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The applicants, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of their marriage in order to access state subsidies such as the pension.

Acceding to the applicants' request, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, noted that as the marriage had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, it qualified as the type of marriage that could be ratified.

On 1 August 1988, the applicants were married. While they had no children of their own, they had raised and cared for a child named Muh. Ilham, now aged 21 years. Muh. Ilham's parents had given him to the applicants to care for because they had two other children for whom providing financially was already a struggle (at the time Muh. Ilham's father was unemployed, only working as a farmer). The applicants had been prepared to raise Muh. Ilham as their own and were able to bear the costs associated with caring for and educating Muh. Ilham because the first applicant had a steady salary with the Indonesian National Military's ground forces (Tenaga Nasional Indonesia - Angkatan Darat). The applicants requested that they be stipulated as Muh. Ilham's legal adoptive parents.

The court cited art 171(h) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, which states that an adopted child is a child for whom the responsibility to cover their educational costs and the like is transferred from their biological parents to their adoptive parents, pursuant to a court judgment. Moreover, pursuant to art 49(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989, for the sake of legal certainty, an adoption based on Islamic law requires a religious court determination.

The court found that, pursuant to Islamic legal provisions, child adoption is legal if the following conditions are met:

1. the child's welfare is prioritised;
2. the child's educational expenses and the like are covered, per art 171(h) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws;
3. the child's adoption does not sever the bloodline between the child and his/her parents;
4. the child's adoption does not result in the child being deemed to share bloodline, inheritance or any other legal relationship with his/her adoptive parents, except for the responsibilities mentioned above in point 2;
5. the child is to inherit one-third of their parents' estate, pursuant to art 209 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws;
6. the child's adoption requires an agreement between the adoptive parents and the representative or person/legal entity facilitating the adoption;
7. the adoption must adhere to current laws vis-a-vis the prospective adoptive parents;
8. the adoption must adhere to current laws for the sake of the child;
9. the adoption of a Muslim child is to adhere to the fatwa of the Indonesian Council of Ulama, No: U-335/MUI 182 of 10 June 1982; and
10. in the interests of legal certainty, child adoption, pursuant to Islamic law and art 171(h) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, be ratified by a religious court decision.

Acceding to the applicants' request, the court acknowledged that, even though Muh. Ilham was 21 years of age and adoption was no longer appropriate, the history and nature of the applicants' relationship with Muh. Ilham was such that he could be declared their adopted child.

On 25 July 1959, the applicants were married in accordance with Islamic law at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's father served as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), two witnesses were present, and the dowry was a palm tree purchased with cash. The applicants were second cousins, however, this did not preclude them from marrying according to Islam or current laws. Moreover, the applicants had never shared a wet-nurse, nor did anyone object to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicants, however, had never received an official marriage certificate because their marriage had taken place in 1959, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The applicants, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of their marriage in order to access state subsidies such as the pension.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court noted that the marriage had met the requirements that there be two witnesses present, that there be a marriage guardian present, and that their be a dowry. Therefore, for the purposes of art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and arts 4(1) and 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the applicants' marriage could be declared lawful.

In 1960, the applicants were married in accordance with Islamic law at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's grandfather served as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), two witnesses were present, and the dowry was a six-acre ricefield purchased with cash. The applicants were second cousins, however, this did not preclude them from marrying according to Islam or current laws. Moreover, the applicants had never shared a wet-nurse, nor did anyone object to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicants, who had had five children, had never received an official marriage certificate because their marriage had taken place in 1960, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The applicants, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of their marriage in order to access state subsidies such as the pension.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court noted that the marriage had met the requirements that there be two witnesses present, that there be a marriage guardian present, and that there be a dowry. Therefore, for the purposes of art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and arts 4(1) and 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the applicants' marriage could be declared lawful.

The applicant had married her husband in 1945, in accordance with Islam, before having eight children. While they were first cousins, their relationship was not forbidden under Islam as they had not shared a wet-nurse, nor were there any objections to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicant's husband passed away due to illness on 15 September 2010, and in order to gain access to his pension, as well as her entitlements as a widow, the applicant required a marriage certificate. As they had married prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, however, one had never been issued. The applicant, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of her marriage.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court, pursuant to art 7(2) and (3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, found that the marriage could be ratified on the grounds that it had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The applicant had married her husband on 26 July 1963, in accordance with Islam, before having eight children. While they were second cousins, their relationship was not forbidden under Islam as they had not shared a wet-nurse, nor were there any objections to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicant's husband passed away due to illness on 3 June 2011, and in order to gain access to his pension, as well as her entitlements as a widow, the applicant required a marriage certificate. As they had married prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, however, one had never been issued. The applicant, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of her marriage.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds that it had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, found that the marriage could be ratified.

The applicant had married her husband on 25 July 1962, in accordance with Islam, before having six children. The applicant and her husband were not blood relations, nor was there any reason according to Islam or current laws to prevent them from marrying. The applicant's husband passed away due to illness on 21 May 2011, and in order to gain access to his pension, as well as her entitlements as a widow, the applicant required a marriage certificate. As they had married prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, however, one had never been issued. The applicant, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of her marriage.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court, pursuant to art 7(1), (2) and (3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, found that the marriage could be ratified on the grounds that it had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The applicant had married her husband on 6 October 1969, in accordance with Islam, before having four children. The applicant and her husband were not blood relations, nor was there any reason according to Islam or current laws to prevent them from marrying. The applicant's husband passed away due to illness on 20 May 2011, and in order to gain access to his pension, as well as her entitlements as a widow, the applicant required a marriage certificate. As they had married prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, however, one had never been issued. The applicant, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of her marriage.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds that it had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, found that the marriage could be ratified.

In 1955, the applicants were married in accordance with Islamic law at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's father served as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), two witnesses were present, and the dowry was a water buffalo purchased with cash. The applicants were second cousins, however, this did not preclude them from marrying according to Islam or current laws. Moreover, the applicants had never shared a wet-nurse, nor did anyone object to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicants, who had had three children, had never received an official marriage certificate because their marriage had taken place in 1960, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The applicants, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of their marriage in order to access state subsidies such as the pension.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court noted that the marriage had met the requirements that there be two witnesses present, that there be a marriage guardian present, and that there be a dowry. Therefore, for the purposes of art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and arts 4(1) and 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the applicants' marriage could be declared lawful.

The applicant married her husband on 5 September 1950, in accordance with Islam, before having seven children. The applicant and her husband were second cousins, but there was no reason according to Islam or current laws to prevent them from marrying. The applicant's husband passed away due to illness on 8 September 2010, and in order to gain access to his pension, as well as her entitlements as a widow, the applicant required a marriage certificate. As they had married prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, however, one had never been issued. The applicant, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of her marriage.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, found that the marriage could be ratified on the grounds that it had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The applicant had married her husband on 10 September 1952, in accordance with Islam, before having four children. The applicant and her husband were not blood relations, nor was there any reason according to Islam or current laws to prevent them from marrying. The applicant's husband passed away due to illness on 16 January 2011, and in order to gain access to his pension, as well as her entitlements as a widow, the applicant required a marriage certificate. As they had married prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, however, one had never been issued. The applicant, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of her marriage.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, found that the marriage could be ratified on the grounds that it had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The applicant had married her husband on 25 October 1960, in accordance with Islam, before having six children. While they were second cousins, their relationship was not forbidden under Islam as they had not shared a wet-nurse, nor were there any objections to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicant's husband passed away due to illness on 13 April 2011, and in order to gain access to his pension, as well as her entitlements as a widow, the applicant required a marriage certificate. As they had married prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, however, one had never been issued. The applicant, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of her marriage.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court noted that the marriage had met the requirements that there be two witnesses present, that there be a marriage guardian present, and that there be a dowry. Therefore, for the purposes of art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and arts 4(1) and 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the applicants' marriage could be declared lawful. Moreover, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, found that the marriage could be ratified on the grounds that it had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The applicant had married her husband on 1 November 1984, in accordance with Islam, before having three children. While they were blood relations, their relationship was not forbidden under Islam or current laws as they had not shared a wet-nurse, nor were there any objections to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicant's husband had passed away due to illness on 6 November 2010, and in order to gain access to his pension, as well as her entitlements as a widow, the applicant required a marriage certificate. The applicant, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of her marriage.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court noted that, for the purposes of art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 4(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the applicants' marriage could be declared lawful. Moreover, the court, pursuant to art 7(2) and (3)(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, found that the marriage could be ratified on the grounds that there was no reason contained in Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage for it not to be.

The applicant had married her husband on 16 August 1942, in accordance with Islam, before having 11 children. While they were second cousins, their relationship was not forbidden under Islam or current laws as they had not shared a wet-nurse, nor were there any objections to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicant's husband had passed away due to illness on 5 April 2011, and in order to gain access to his pension, as well as her entitlements as a widow, the applicant required a marriage certificate. As they had married prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, however, one had never been issued. The applicant, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of her marriage.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court noted that the marriage had met the requirements that there be two witnesses present, that there be a marriage guardian present, and that there be a dowry. Therefore, for the purposes of art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, the applicant and her husband could be deemed husband and wife at law, and, pursuant to art 7(1), (2) and (3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, their marriage was deemed lawful on the grounds that it had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The parties were married on 20 February 2015, after which they lived with the plaintiff's parents in Madura for six months, before moving to Atambua in September that same year. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had failed to have a child in eight months, and that the marriage was no longer harmonious because the defendant had:

1. failed to provide for the plaintiff financially for the duration of their marriage;
2. frequently beaten the plaintiff;
3. failed to show any responsibility for the plaintiff, instead receiving financial support from the plaintiff's mother.

Problems escalated on 19 September 2015 resulting in the parties separating, the plaintiff moving to her parents' home in Atambua, and the defendant to his parents' home in Mojokerto, East Java. The parties had remained separated since and the plaintiff sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

In the defendant's absence, the Court acceded to the plaintiff'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.