SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 17 April 2011, had one child, and had lived with the respondent's parents in Balikpapan. The marriage had always been quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. never thought the applicant provided her with sufficient financial support, despite the applicant providing her with his entire monthly salary; and
2. failed to appreciate the applicant as her husband, frequently arguing with what the applicant would say.

Problems escalated in April 2014, resulting in the parties separating, the applicant leaving the respondent's parents' home for his parents' home. The applicant submitted that he had suffered emotionally as a result and wished to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of 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. The court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 20 May 2007 and had lived with the respondent's parents. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. By 2012, however, it had become quarrelsome. By mid-2013, the respondent's family had begun to meddle in the parties' domestic affairs. The applicant also submitted that, after six years of marriage, the parties had no children, to the applicant's dismay. By July 2013, the parties had separated, and had agreed to divorce and return to their respective parents' homes.

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of 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. The court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 10 October 2010 and had two children. The marriage had been harmonious until November 2013, after which time the parties had begun to quarrel frequently. The applicant submitted that this was because the respondent did not appreciate the applicant as her husband, often flouting the applicant's wishes in public, and had failed to care for the applicant when he was unwell. The respondent had also suggested to the applicant that the parties separate for the sake of the children. Accordingly, the applicant sought a divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of 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. The court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 25 October 1991 and had three children. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By December 2008, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. would disrespect the applicant;
2. would often leave the parties' home without telling the applicant; and
3. was unsatisfied with what the applicant could provide.

The applicant submitted that deliberative efforts between the parties to reconcile had failed, and that the parties had been separated since 2009. Accordingly, the applicant sought a divorce (talak satu raj'i) from the respondent.

The Court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of 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. The Court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 23 June 2012 and had one child. After marrying, the parties lived with the applicant's parents for one year and five months, before moving to the respondent's parents' home. By 2013 the marriage had already become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted:

1. when the parties lived with the applicant's parents, the respondent would often leave the house without the applicant's permission;
2. the respondent no longer wanted to live with the applicant's parents and insisted on living with her parents; and
3. the respondent never heeded the applicant's advice as her husband.

The applicant submitted that deliberative efforts between the parties to reconcile had failed, and that the parties had slept in separate beds for the past 10 months. Accordingly, the applicant sought a divorce (talak satu raj'i) from the respondent.

The court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of 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. The court also acknowledged that the parties' marriage was no longer a peaceful, hopeful and loving domestic life based on the principle of One Almighty God, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

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.

The parties were married on 28 October 2007, after which they had lived with the defendant's parents. The parties also had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, by the end of 2012, the parties' marriage was no longer harmonious because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair with another woman by the name of Yustika. The defendant's duplicity had become a source of tension between the parties, even moving the defendant to express his desire to divorce the plaintiff. By January 2013 both parties had returned to their respective parents' homes. The plaintiff submitted that, since the parties' separation, the defendant had contacted her to inform her that he had remarried. The plaintiff also requested that, owing to her own impecuniosity, the Court waive any procedural court costs.

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. It also ordered the state to bear the plaintiff's court costs.

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 1 October 2010, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents. They had been married for eight years and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage was no longer harmonious, however, because the defendant had physically assaulted her. More specifically, he had burned a cigarette out on her right elbow and thigh because the plaintiff had failed to make the defendant a coffee to his satisfaction. As a result, the parties had been separated since 2011, 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, that being an everlasting and joyful, as well as peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) domestic life. It acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(a) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(a) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 8 May 2006 but had no children. The applicant submitted that, since 3 February 2012, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious after the respondent had ignored the applicant's pleas for her to return to Atambua, after having obtained the applicant's permission to return to her parents' home in Ainiba to help plant a rice padi. Accordingly, the applicant sought the Court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'). Owing to his own impecuniosity, the applicant also requested that the state bear his court costs.

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, that being an everlasting and joyful, as well as peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) domestic life. It acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict, per art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The Court also ordered the state to bear the applicant's costs.

The parties were married on 16 November 2012, after which they had lived with the respondent's parents in Agam. The applicant submitted that after three months of marriage the parties had begun to quarrel regularly because the respondent:

1. undervalued the applicant as her husband, often directing profane language at the applicant; and
2. was often unnecessarily jealous because the applicant was a driver, often becoming angry if the applicant returned home late, even refusing to let the applicant enter their home.

Problems escalated in April 2013 after the applicant confronted the respondent for her behaviour. A week after the respondent dismissed the applicant's advice, the applicant left the respondent for his parents' home. The parties had subsequently remained separated for the two years leading up to the proceeding. Accordingly, the applicant requested the Court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

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 applicant'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 plaintiff submitted that she and the defendant were married on 17 November 2006, after which time they had lived at her home for nine years and eight months. The parties also had one child aged 8 years. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious, but for the past month it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair, which she had discovered after reading a text message from another woman on the defendant's mobile phone. When the plaintiff questioned the defendant about the contents of the text message, however, the defendant refused to acknowledge his duplicitous behaviour. While the parties had since remained under the same roof, they now slept in separate beds.

While the plaintiff had initially requested an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), she informed the court that she and the defendant had reconciled and that she would be withdrawing her application. The court directed the court registrar to withdraw the application and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 191,000).

The plaintiff submitted that she and the defendant were married on 7 August 2015, after which time they had lived at the plaintiff's parents' home. While they had already consummated their marriage, the parties had no children. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious, but for the past two weeks it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant had failed to provide for her financially. Moreover, the defendant had refused to look for work. Following their disagreement the defendant had returned to his parents' home. While the defendant had sought to reconcile with the plaintiff, the plaintiff had initially refused to do so.

While the plaintiff had initially requested an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), she informed the court that she and the defendant had reconciled and that she would be withdrawing her application. The court directed the court registrar to withdraw the application and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 241,000).

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic law on 7 March 1992 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mahar) had been seven mayam worth of gold in cash. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor and the second applicant a virgin. The parties had never divorced nor had they left Islam (murtad). There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had two children. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The court cited Kitab l'anatu al-Thalibin, juz IV, page 254, and Kitab Ushu al-Fiqh by Abdul Wahhab Khallaf, as examples of Islamic norms that allow the ratification of a marriage based on facts such as those established by the parties. The court then, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 4 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, ratified the parties marriage based on the evidence produced by the applicants.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic law on 14 August 1995 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as the second applicant's marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mahar) had been 10 mayam worth of gold. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor and the second applicant a virgin. The parties had never divorced nor had they left Islam (murtad). There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had two children. They had already registered their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs and received a marriage certificate. The parties, however, also requested that the court ratify their marriage for residency purposes.

The court cited Kitab l'anatu al-Thalibin, juz IV, page 254, and Kitab Ushu al-Fiqh by Abdul Wahhab Khallaf, as examples of Islamic norms that allow the ratification of a marriage based on facts such as those established by the parties. The court then, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 4 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, ratified the parties marriage based on the evidence produced by the applicants.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic law on 20 September 1981 by a marriage qadi (qadhi nikah) before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mahar) had been eight mayam worth of gold. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor and the second applicant a virgin. The parties had never divorced nor had they left Islam (murtad). There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had two children. They had not yet registered their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs and required a court determination in order to obtain a marriage deed (akta nikah).

The court cited Kitab l'anatu al-Thalibin, juz IV, page 254, and Kitab Ushu al-Fiqh by Abdul Wahhab Khallaf, as examples of Islamic norms that allow the ratification of a marriage based on facts such as those established by the parties. The court then, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 4 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, ratified the parties marriage based on the evidence produced by the applicants.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic law on 20 December 2004 by a marriage qadi (qadhi nikah) before two witnesses. The second applicant's older brother had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mahar) had been eight mayam worth of gold. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor and the second applicant a virgin. The parties had never divorced nor had they left Islam (murtad). There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had two children. They had registered their marriage with the local village (gampong) but not yet with the Office of Religious Affairs and required a court determination in order to obtain a marriage deed (akta nikah) and for other administrative purposes.

The court cited Kitab l'anatu al-Thalibin, juz IV, page 254, and Kitab Ushu al-Fiqh by Abdul Wahhab Khallaf, as examples of Islamic norms that allow the ratification of a marriage based on facts such as those established by the parties. The court then, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 4 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, ratified the parties marriage based on the evidence produced by the applicants.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic law on 18 December 2005 by a qadhi before two witnesses. The second applicant's younger brother had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mahar) had been four mayam worth of gold. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a widower and the second applicant a widow. The parties had never divorced nor had they left Islam (murtad). There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had two children. They had registered their marriage with the local village (gampong) but not yet with the Office of Religious Affairs and required a court determination for administrative and other purposes.

The court cited Kitab l'anatu al-Thalibin, juz IV, page 254, and Kitab Tuhfah, volume 4, page 132, as examples of Islamic norms that allow the ratification of a marriage based on facts such as those established by the parties. In acceding to the parties' request, the court found that, pursuant to arts 2(1) and 6 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 7(2) and (3)(b) of the Compilation Islamic law, the parties' marriage constituted an Islamic marriage agreement (aqad nikah).

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic law on 12 August 1983 by a marriage qadi (qadhi nikah) before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mahar) had been four mayam worth of gold. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor and the second applicant a virgin. The parties had never divorced nor had they left Islam (murtad). There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had three children. They had registered their marriage with the local village (gampong) but not yet with the Office of Religious Affairs and required a court determination for marriage administration and other administrative purposes.

The court cited Kitab l'anatu al-Thalibin, juz IV, page 254, and Kitab Ushu al-Fiqh by Abdul Wahhab Khallaf, as examples of Islamic norms that allow the ratification of a marriage based on facts such as those established by the parties. The court then, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 4 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, ratified the parties marriage based on the evidence produced by the applicants.