SHARIAsource

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.

The Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court) had stipulated the parties' joint assets as several parcels of land, the proceeds from the sale of a parcel of land, as well as a Janome sewing machine.

The appellant challenged the lower court's decision on the grounds that property claimed by the respondent was not the joint assets of the parties, but rather the property of the respondent's parents, as well as the appellant's personal property. As evidence, the appellant produced a certificate of declaration from his biological mother, a certificate and declaration of a bequest from the appellant, and a certificate and declaration from the parties' four children. The Court, however, found that these supporting documents were prepared by the appellant alone at the time of the proceeding and were, therefore, inadmissible.

The Court also noted that the proceeds from the sale of joint assets sold while the marriage was still on foot did not entitle the appellant not to share the proceeds evenly with the respondent. Indeed, an even distribution of those proceeds was deemed by the Court to be halal, and an uneven distribution would be a sin (dosa). Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.

The parties were married on 10 April 1994 and had four children. The plaintiff submitted that, around 2013, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly because the defendant:

1. did not appreciate the plaintiff as his wife;
2. no longer executed his responsibilities as a husband; and
3. had had an extra-marital affair.

Problems escalated in 2013, resulting in the parties sleeping in separate beds (despite remaining under the same roof). Regardless, the plaintiff believed that the marriage was irreparable, making divorce the only feasible option.

In his oral response to the court, the defendant disputed the three causes of conflict between the parties, but held no objection to the court granting the plaintiff a divorce.

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 her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 29 September 2003 and had two children. Since 2013, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly after the respondent had had an extra-marital affair and then married the other man. Problems escalated and, on 24 September 2014, the respondent left the parties' matrimonial home. As a result, the applicant believed divorce was the only feasible option.

Despite having been summonsed, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the respondent failed to attend court. Citing Surat Al-Baqarah verse 227 from the Qur'an, as well as 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, the court acceded to the applicant's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The parties were married on 29 May 2010 and had one child. By 2011, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of the defendant:

1. directing profane language at the plaintiff;
2. often damaging items in the home; and
3. sometimes physically assaulting the plaintiff.

Problems escalated and, by the beginning of 2013, the plaintiff had left the defendant. As time passed, the plaintiff believed that divorce was the only feasible option.

Despite having been summonsed, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the defendant failed to attend court. Citing Surat Al-Baqarah verse 227 from the Qur'an, as well as 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, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 301,000).

The parties were married on 29 March 2007 but had no children. They had begun to quarrel as early as April 2007, after the defendant had reverted to Catholicism, having previously converted to Islam. That same month they separated.

The plaintiff maintained that her attempts to reconcile with the defendant had been in vain, and that the defendant's reversion to Catholicism had caused her great suffering. It followed that the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option remaining was divorce, pursuant to art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

Based on the information before it, including witness statements, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, as well as on the grounds that the defendant's reversion to Catholicism caused had disharmony in the parties' homelife, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) and (h) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, Kitab Fiqih Sunnah Juz II, and Manhaj al-Thullab juz VI. Despite failing to attend the proceeding, the court acknowledged that the defendant had been summonsed officially, pursuant to art 26 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 138 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The parties were married on 15 May 2014, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents for three months before moving to their own accommodation. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2014, the parties had frequently quarrelled because the defendant:

1. had not permitted the plaintiff to adhere to a family planning program;
2. had not permitted the plaintiff to see her family; and
3. had forced the plaintiff to leave their accommodation when they would argue, even disposing of the plaintiff's clothes.

Consequently, the plaintiff had been living with her parents, while the defendant had remained in the parties' accommodation. It followed that the plaintiff sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

In the defendant's absence, the Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21. It 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.

The parties were married on 24 December 1995, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents for three days, before departing for Irian Jaya, where they lived for three years, before then returning to Atambua. The parties had four children. The plaintiff submitted that, since October 2005, the parties had frequently quarrelled because the defendant:

1. gambled frequently, ignoring the plaintiff's advice to stop;
2. would ignore the plaintiff's suggestions; and
3. had repudiated his responsibilities towards his children and the plaintiff as a financial provider.

The parties had been separated for the past 10 years and the plaintiff requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21. It 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. While not part of the plaintiff's submissions, it also found that the quarrelling between the parties was akin to domestic violence and, pursuant to arts 5(d) and 9 of Law No. 23 of 2004 on the Abolition of Domestic Violence, had to be stopped immediately.

The parties were married on 6 April 1980 and had two children. The applicant submitted that the parties had been happily married for 30 years. By June 2011, however, the marriage had become quarrelsome after the respondent had had an extra-marital affair with another man, whose identity the respondent had kept concealed from the applicant. The applicant also submitted that the respondent would return home in the middle of the night, flout or ignore the applicant's advice, become angry with the applicant, use profane language with the applicant, and had even requested that the applicant divorce her as quickly as possible before a religious court. As a result, the parties had been sleeping in separate beds since 18 February 2012. The applicant submitted that the information with which he had provided the court was sufficient to be granted a divorce (talak satu raj'i), pursuant to art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The court acceded to the applicant's request, granting him a revocable 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.

The parties were married on 28 July 1988 and had four children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until September 2006, after which time the defendant had married another woman, unbeknownst to the plaintiff. Since June 2010, when the defendant left the plaintiff to be exclusively with his other wife, the parties had not been in contact. The plaintiff submitted that the past two years and 10 months leading up to the proceeding had caused her great emotional suffering, and that she no longer held onto hope that the parties would reunite. Accordingly, she requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

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

The parties were married on 21 March 2011 and had one child. They had, at times, lived with both the applicant's parents and the respondent's parents. By January 2012, however, the applicant submitted that the marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent:

1. would ignore the applicant's advice;
2. refused to carry out her spousal obligations;
3. would want to return her to parents' home if she became angry; and
4. had been dishonest with the applicant.

Problems escalated in August 2012 when the respondent forbade the applicant from visiting his family who were mourning the loss of a family member. Despite efforts from both parties' families and the applicant to counsel the respondent about her conduct, the respondent refused to listen, instead leaving the applicant, returning to her parents' home, without the applicant's permission. The parties had remained separated for the nine months leading up to the proceeding, which had caused the applicant great emotional suffering. The applicant sought the court's permission to divorce the respondent, submitting that there was no hope of the parties reuniting (talak satu raj'i).

Despite the respondent's absence from court, 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 on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 7 November 2007, after which time they had lived with the defendant's parents for five years. The parties had two children. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By 2010, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. would direct profane language at the plaintiff; and
2. would frequently become emotional.

On 20 November 2012, the defendant filed for divorce with the Parepare Religious Court before subsequently withdrawing his application. Despite withdrawing the application, it had already made the plaintiff relocate to her parents' home, where she had remained for the four months leading up to the proceeding. The plaintiff submitted that she could not see herself reuniting with the defendant and, accordingly, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, 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 on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 7 April 1990 and had four children. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had been harmonious until August 2008, after which time it had become quarrelsome because the defendant had:

1. developed a gambling addiction;
2. never provided the plaintiff with financial support;
3. developed an addition to alcohol; and
4. had an extra-marital affair.

On 11 March 2013, when the plaintiff learned of the defendant's extra-marital affair, she asked the defendant to leave their home. The parties had subsequently remained separated for the month leading up to the proceeding. Familial intervention had also failed to make the parties reconcile. The plaintiff, accordingly, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), and that, owing to her own impecuniosity, it exempt her from any court fees.

Despite the defendant's absence from 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, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the state to bear the plaintiff's costs.

The parties were married on 10 November 1999, after which time they had lived in a rental property for 11 years. They had three children. The plaintiff submitted that, as early as 2000, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had:

1. developed a gambling addiction; and
2. never provided the plaintiff with any financial support.

On 23 December 2010, the plaintiff left the defendant, returning to her parents' home. The parties had subsequently remained separated for the two years and four months leading up to the proceeding. The plaintiff, accordingly, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), and that, owing to her own impecuniosity, it exempt her from any court fees.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(a) and (b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(a) and (b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the defendant had developed a gambling addiction, and that the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years. The court also ordered the state to bear the plaintiff's costs.

The parties were married on 7 October 2002 and had one child, who was now in the care of the plaintiff. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. By November 2006, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. The defendant suffered from an (undisclosed) mental illness, preventing him from being able to work. The plaintiff submitted that she could not carry on married to the defendant, having already left him by returning to live with her parents in November 2006. The parties had remained separated for the six years leading up to 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, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years.

Sujak and Nuryani were married on 3 August 1982 and had two children (Tugik Dini Rike Nur Anggrainingsih (23) and Almaiciko Bawita Firnanda (13)). They also owned a property they had purchased with Nuryani's inheritance and Sujak's pension funds. The property had been placed in the name of their first child, Tugik, but was tenanted by Nuryani's mother (Wartini) and another family member (Rumini). On 5 February 2005, Nuryani passed away due to illness. On 12 February 2012, Nuryani's father, Joyo Suwito, passed away, also due to illness. On 23 December 2014, Tugik relocated to East Kalimantan with her husband. Then, on 8 December 2015, Sujak passed away. Since Sujak's passing, Almaiciko had been cared for by her uncle (Nuryani's younger brother), the applicant (Mutaal). As Almaiciko was still under the legal age of consent, the applicant sought from the court a stipulation that he was Almaiciko's legal guardian.

The court acceded to the application for guardianship, pursuant to arts 50(1) and 51(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 107(4) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds that Almaiciko was under the age of consent (and not yet married) and that the applicant was a family member and, therefore, a legitimate applicant for guardianship.

In preambular statement (a), this regional regulation states that Gorontalo province is a customary law region (Daerah Hukum Adat), whose culture is based on the philosophy of 'Adat bersendikan Syara, Syara bersendikan Kitabullah' ('custom found upon Islamic law, Islamic law found upon the Qur'an'), which needs to be maintained. Accordingly, it seeks to regulate and prohibit immoral behaviour that damages the societal fabric of Gorontalo, and which contradicts religious norms, morality and customs (art 2(1)). The regulation prohibits:

1. sexual relations out of wedlock, including adultery and prostitution (zina) (arts 3 and 4);
2. illegitimate marriage (art 5);
3. rape and sexual abuse (art 6);
4. pornoaction and pornography (art 7);
5. gambling (art 8);
6. alcohol consumption in non-designated areas (art 9(1));
7. being intoxicated in a public place (art 9(2)); and
8. narcotics distribution and abuse (art 10).

Contravention of arts 3-8 and 9(2) carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment or a fine of IDR 5 million (art 14(1)), while contravention of art 10 carries a maximum penalty of IDR 5 million or a loss of trading licence (art 14(2)).