SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 11 February 2004 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had been harmonious initially; however, since August 2012, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide for his family;
2. was abbrasive with the plaintiff; and
3. frequently engaged in extra-marital sexual relations.

Problems escalated and, by January 2014, the parties were sleeping in separate beds, and by March 2014, the defendant had left the matrimonial home. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and 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, 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 plaintiff's request.

The parties were married on 8 July 2007 but had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, by January 2008, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the defendant had failed to provide for his family;
2. the defendant's family would meddle in their domestic affairs;
3. the defendant frequently threatened the plaintiff; and
4. the defendant directed profane language at the plaintiff.

Problems escalated and, by July 2014, the parties had separated after the defendant left the matrimonial home. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The defendant conceded that he had used profane language with the plaintiff, but only because she had accused him of having had an extra-marital affair. Moreover, that the parties had quarrelled because the plaintiff controlled the parties' finances, to the defendant's dismay.

On the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, 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 plaintiff's request.

The parties were married on 23 January 2001 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious initially, but, since August 2013, it had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide for his family;
2. had had an extra-marital affair; and
3. drank excessively.

Problems escalated and, by December 2013, the parties had separated after the defendant left the matrimonial home. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and 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.

The parties were married on 3 June 1993 and had seven children. The applicant submitted that, by July 2013, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent:

1. would ignore and oppose the applicant's advice;
2. did not want to look after the parties' children;
3. failed to appreciate what the applicant would provide her with; and
4. had had an extra-marital affair.

Problems escalated and, by March 2014, the parties had separated after the respondent left the matrimonial home. The applicant had already made efforts to reconcile with the respondent but to no avail. Accordingly, 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, 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.

In 2011, after 23 years of marriage, the parties' relationship had begun to deteriorate. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had married another woman with whom he had a child (son). For two years the plaintiff and defendant had lived separately and had not been physically intimate with one another.

The defendant denied the plaintiff's submissions, stating that the plaintiff had often accused him of marrying another woman, and that her accusations were generally based on hearsay. Moreover, the defendant submitted that he had often tried to initiate physical intimacy with the plaintiff, only to be rejected.

After unsuccessfully counselling the parties to reconcile, the court noted that the defendant had acknowledged the deterioration of the relationship, but not the causes thereof. While the defendant did not want a divorce, the plaintiff's submissions, supported by witness statements that the parties had already tried to reconcile, moved the court to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff had met the evidentiary requirements contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, and acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) 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 plaintiff submitted that, since January 2009, the parties' marriage had become disharmonious because:

1. the parties would often quarrel because the defendant was not transparent regarding his finances, only ever providing the plaintiff with daily spending money (the plaintiff did not know how much the defendant earned);
2. since having had their first child, the plaintiff would have to ask the defendant, sometimes after having been brought to tears, for physical intimacy;
3. the defendant always refused invitations to family gatherings at the plaintiff's parents' home for Eid;
4. by 2011, the parties were still quarrelling over the same matters, despite the plaintiff's attempts to be patient with the defendant, and the defendant would only alter his behaviour if he needed something from the plaintiff;
5. in 2012, the defendant still refused to attend the plaintiff's parents' home for Eid;
6. finally, on 27 September 2014, the plaintiff invited the defendant to her parents' home, but the defendant refused to attend and instead told the plaintiff to return to her parents' home alone, which she did.

Since then the parties had remained separated. The plaintiff, however, withdrew her case in court stating that she and the defendant had reconciled their differences. The defendant concurred, assenting to the case's withdrawal.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Langsa Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), but also ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant the following in maintenance: IDR 5 million (iddah - 100-day period after divorce has been granted); the monetary equivalent of two grams of gold (mut'ah); IDR 1 million (kiswah - clothing); and IDR 750,000 per month in child maintenance, until the parties' three children were of age and independent.

Overall, the Court agreed with the decision of the lower court. It did not, however, concur with the lower court's usage of the word 'menolak' (dismiss) in regards to the appellant's request that one-third of the respondent's salary be provided to the appellant as financial support, based on Government Regulation No. 10 of 1983 (amended by Government Regulation No. 45 of 1991), because those regulations relate to the discipline of civil servants, rather than marriage and divorce. Accordingly, the Court stated, such a claim should be declared 'tidak dapat diterima' (unacceptable).

The Court also increased the amount of maintenance payable by the respondent, as follows: IDR 5 million (iddah); the monetary equivalent of three grams of gold (mut'ah); IDR 2 million (kiswah); and IDR 750,000 per month in child maintenance, until the parties' three children were of age and independent.

The appellant had requested an additional examination be conducted by the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court) before the Court handed down its judgment. Content this had taken place, while dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the lower court's decision to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), the Court noted the following:

1. the child maintenance fees for the parties' two children deemed appropriate by the lower court were unclear in quantum; and
2. so too were the maskan (accommodation) and kiswah (clothing) allowances afforded by the appellant to the respondent.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the appellant, pursuant to art 41(c) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 149 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to pay to the respondent at least IDR 750,000 per child until the children reached 21 years of age, and IDR 3 million for maskan and kiswah.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Sigli Shari'a Court (lower court), which had determined the parties' marriage in 1993 to be lawful, and granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The Court found a discrepancy between the lower court's report, particularly its final court report (hearing XIV), and the judgment. The report stated that the appellant was absent from court at the time the decision was handed down, while the judgment itself stated that both parties were in attendance. If the appellant had been present at the time of judgment, his appeal application would be invalid due to late submission (20 days after judgment had been handed down).

The Court held that, in the case of such a discrepancy, the court report prevails because it is inseparable from the decision itself. The Court also found, however, that the decision of the lower court was sound and met all legal requirements. Accordingly, while it accepted the appellant's application to appeal, it upheld the lower court's ruling to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Meureudu Shari'a Court, which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), and ordered the respondent to return half of her dowry (mahar) to the appellant.

The Court upheld the decision of the lower court, but also acknowledged that in his appeal, the appellant had objected to the way in which information provided by one of his witnesses had been appropriated by another party. The Court noted, however, that this was not problematic as the proceeding before the lower court was its own proceeding. Moreover, the Court emphasised that the relationship between the two parties was already at an end, and that to perpetuate the relationship when the parties would continue to quarrel would be worse than granting a divorce. Similarly, to place blame on one of the parties was not what was envisaged by art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, the focus of which was on the actual disintegration of a marriage itself.

A bin H (deceased) married F binti A (second appellant) in 1974, after his first wife (A binti I) had passed away. The question before the Court was whether or not the property subject of the will was the joint property of the deceased and second appellant, or just that of the deceased. If it had been acquired while the deceased and second appellant were married, art 35 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 85 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, dictated that it was their joint property, which had obvious consequences in terms of how it was distributed among the deceased's beneficiaries.

In overturning the decision of the Calang Shari'a Court (lower court), the Court found that certain portions of some of the parcels of land in dispute were the sole property of the deceased, while others were the joint property of the deceased and second appellant. The deceased's sole property was to be divided between his 10 beneficiaries (two wives and eight children), while the joint property of the second appellant and the deceased was to be divided 50/50 between the second appellant and the deceased. The inheritance of A binti I and M binti A bin H (one of the deceased's daughters, also deceased) was to be distributed among the surviving beneficiaries.

The Tapaktuan Shari'a Court (lower court) found that Siti Aminah (deceased) had left to her husband one-quarter of her estate, to her daughter Rosmalena binti Djamiudin (appellant) one-quarter, and her son Ridwansyah B.Ac bin Djamiudin (respondent) two-quarters. As her husband (Djamiudin) had also already passed away, his one-quarter share was left to his three children as follows: one-fifth to the appellant, two-fifths to the respondent, and two-fifths to the replacement beneficiary and wife (following respondent) of his deceased son Sofyan bin Djamiudin, Anita. Of Sofyan bin Djamiusin's two-fifths, he had bequeathed one-eighth to his wife (following respondent), more than one-half (58.33 per cent) to his son Fadel Muhammad, and more than one-quarter (29.166 per cent) to his daughter Hirah Manda Sofyani.

The Court found that the lower court had erred in stipulating the co-respondent as the replacement beneficiary of her deceased husband Sofyan because her relationship with Sofyan was one through marriage, not blood. The Court also found that a bequest, supposedly made by Siti Aminah on 15 October 1981, was rendered null and void as Siti Aminah had passed away on 29 April 1981. Accordingly, it redistributed the various estates based on these findings.

The parties were married on 5 May 2002. Since May 2006, however, the marriage had become disharmonious. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant:

1. had frequently become emotional and angry and would utter obscenities, even physically assaulting the plaintiff;
2. was never transparent with the plaintiff as to his finances and salary; and
3. had stopped providing the plaintiff with emotional and financial support since May 2006.

Despite these issues, the parties had remained under the one roof.

In the defendant's absence, the court found that the parties no longer loved each other as husband and wife, as envisaged by art 77(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, ongoing conflict between the parties enabled the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra).

The parties were married on 30 July 1994. The parties lived together and had three children (ages 19, 16 and 10). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. In October 2012, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The applicant submitted that the respondent had been disobedient, selfish and inconsiderate to his needs. Problems escalated in 2013 when the respondent stopped sleeping in the parties’ bedroom without her husband’s approval. The parties ceased to share any physical intimacy and seldom communicated. The applicant submitted that the respondent had stated that she did not need the applicant and had requested a divorce. The parties’ differences became irreconcilable and the applicant requested the court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj’i).

Before the proceeding, the applicant had failed to make a court costs down payment (panjar biaya perkara), despite being sent a reminder from the court. The court dismissed the case and halted the proceeding in accordance with art 49(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary as amended by Law No. 3 of 2006, in conjunction with Law No. 50 of 2009, and art 2(4) of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Authority, in conjunction with art 57(3) of Law No. 7 of 1989, and ordered the applicant to pay all court costs (IDR 841,000).

The parties were married on 26 August 2006. They lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ home and had one child (aged 8). By 2011, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant:

1. consumed alcohol excessively; and
2. frequently gambled.

In 2012, the defendant left the plaintiff, never to return. He made no attempts to communicate with the plaintiff, and provided her with no financial support. The plaintiff claimed to have suffered as a result and requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra). The court, pursuant to art 39(1) and (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, acceded to plaintiff’s request on the grounds that the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years.

The parties were married on 20 September 2000, after which they lived with the plaintiff's parents for four years and three months. The parties had two children. Initially the marriage was harmonious, however, by 2004 the parties had begun to quarrel frequently, culminating in the defendant leaving the plaintiff on 21 December 2004. At the date of the proceeding, the parties had been separated for five years, the defendant living with his parents. During those five years the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support or any other support in kind. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed that the defendant had breached figures 1, 2 and 3 of their wedding vows (ta'lik talak), and was prepared to pay an 'iwadl of IDR 1,000 for the defendant to grant her a divorce (talak satu khul'i).

In the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. Pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it granted the plaintiff a divorce on the grounds that the defendant had breached their wedding vows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The parties were married on 13 June 2013. Initially, they lived with the plaintiff's parents for a week before moving to their own bunkhouse for a month. The plaintiff then left in August 2013. The plaintiff submitted that, since June 2013, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious due to:

1. the defendant's dishonesty with regard to work and household finances;
2. the defendant's disinterest in the plaintiff's advice; and
3. the defendant stating he would prefer to live with his older sister than stay with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff maintained that an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shugra) was the only option after both parties' families had unsuccessfully sought to make them reconcile. The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws concurred, granting the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 8 February 2009. On 17 July 2009 they had their first and only child and, after two years, relocated to Denpasar, Bali. Since July 2010, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was because:

1. the defendant's temperamental nature would often result in discussions turning into arguments where the defendant would slap, hit and shove the plaintiff; and
2. the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with financial or emotional support since March 2011.

Indeed, in March 2011, problems escalated, resulting in the defendant leaving the matrimonial home. The plaintiff asserted that the parties' differences were irreconcilable and that the court should find sufficient reason to grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro), pursuant to Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court concurred, finding that ongoing conflict between the parties satisfied the legitimate reason requirement to grant a divorce, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Meulaboh Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The Court did not concur with the lower court's decision, noting that the respondent had sought a divorce on the grounds that, after two years of marriage, she and the appellant had begun to quarrel regularly because of the appellant's gambling tendencies. The respondent had also stated before the lower court that other causes of their quarrelling were the appellant's marijuana usage, profane language and venerial disease.

The Court, however, found that the information provided by the two witnesses produced by the respondent before the lower court conflicted, and that neither witness knew of the accusations the respondent had made in her claim. Rather, the witness' information was based on the information of others.

The Court, taking into consideration the appellant's objections, as well as the opinion of the dissenting judge of the lower court, reversed the decision of the lower court to grant the respondent a divorce.