SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 11 February 2001 and had one child. The applicant submitted, however, that around September-October 2013, he and the respondent had begun to quarrel regularly. This was the result of:

1. the respondent's distrust of the applicant, whereas the applicant provided the respondent space and time for her own activities;
2. an increasing incompatibility and difference of opinion between the two parties;
3. the respondent requesting the applicant return her to her family, which the applicant interpreted as the respondent wanting to separate from the applicant, despite the respondent returning to the applicant after being counselled by her older sibling; and
4. the above incidents leaving the applicant feeling uncomfortable in the respondent's presence and his feelings towards the respondent somewhat dissipated.

Indeed, the applicant and respondent had not been physically intimate since 2008.

The respondent refuted many of the applicant's submissions, primarily that the applicant's own sexual dysfunction caused by a blood condition, as well as his constantly playing golf, had caused the aforementioned rift.

After judicial mediation proved unsuccessful, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent maintenance costs of IDR 30 million backdated six months, as well as IDR 15 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), and IDR 25 million for mut'ah (divorce compensation).

The parties were married on 18 February 2002 and had two children. The applicant submitted, however, that, since 2003, he and the respondent had quarrelled regularly. This was a result of:

1. incompatibility and a difference of opinion as to domestic affairs;
2. the respondent not obeying the applicant; and
3. the respondent often sharing embarrassing family stories with other people.

Problems escalated in October 2013 resulting in the parties separating, the applicant moving to his parents' home. Since then the parties had not been physically intimate.

The respondent dismissed many of the applicant's claims, qualifying that while she and the applicant had quarrelled, their problems were still reconcilable. Moreover, that she had been an obedient and respectful wife and had not shared embarrassing family stories with other people. The respondent claimed that the applicant had confessed his own infidelity to her, and that this was the primary cause of the rift in their marriage.

Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the applicant a revorcable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance, as well as IDR 1.5 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), IDR 2 million for mut'ah (divorce compensation), and IDR 2 million in back payments.

The parties were married on 5 May 2013 and had their only child on 7 September 2013. The plaintiff, however, submitted that the parties had quarrelled regularly since they were married because:

1. the defendant only ever provided the plaintiff with IDR 100,000 per month, and since July 2014, no financial support at all, resulting in the plaintiff having to work, as well as request financial assistance from her parents to meet their domestic needs;
2. the defendant rarely worked, but instead prioritised spending time with his friends rather than the plaintiff and their child;
3. the defendant's parents would meddle in the parties' domestic affairs, and encourage the defendant to leave the plaintiff; and
4. the defendant had not been a good father figure for the parties' child, and had not been responsible for his family, failing to provide them with any love and affection.

Problems escalated in July 2014 when the plaintiff could no longer tolerate the defendant's behaviour. Following an argument, the defendant left the parties' rental property and returned to his parents' home. The parties had remained separate for four months, during which time the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff and their child with any financial support. The plaintiff claimed that she had worked hard to resolve the parties' disputes, even seeking the assistance of the Marriage Preservation, Fostering and Counselling Body (Badan Penasehatan, Pembinaan dan Pelestarian Perkawinan), but problems remained the same.

Initial court-sanctioned mediation failed to make the parties reconcile, but when the defendant provided his verbal response to the plaintiff's allegations in court, the plaintiff agreed to withdraw her application for divorce.

The parties were married on 7 March 1997 before a marriage registry official at the local Office of Religious Affairs. The plaintiff submitted that, at the end of 2011, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel often. This was a result of the defendant's gambling addiction, as well as his lack of financial transparency with the plaintiff. On one occasion this lack of transparency had resulted in a pivotal disagreement that left the plaintiff feeling uncomfortable in her relationship with the defendant. While family intervention had previously made the parties reconcile, this disagreement compromised any genuine reconciliation. Problems escalated further in September 2013, when the defendant failed to maintain his end of an agreement with the plaintiff to purchase a vehicle.

The plaintiff, having lost patience with the defendant, left Batam (where the parties were living) and returned home to Padang to her parents' home. Since then the defendant had not asked the plaintiff how she and their children were. On 30 January 2014, the defendant sent to the plaintiff a piece of paper, the contents of which stated that he divorced the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff decided their differences were irreconcilable and sought to divorce the defendant.

The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) on the grounds that ongoing conflict between the parties was a legitimate reason for divorce.

The parties were married on 19 November 2011 and had one child. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. Entering their third year as husband and wife, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant would often leave their home without informing the plaintiff, not return until the middle of the night, without any legitimate excuse, and sometimes return enraged, sometimes even physically harming the plaintiff and their child.

Following Eid al-Fitr (Idul Fitri) in 2014, the parties had begun to sleep in separate beds. On several occasions, the plaintiff had reminded and counselled the defendant to treat his family well. Her advice fell on deaf ears, however, as the defendant's behaviour worsened, resulting in him leaving the plaintiff, and returning to his own parents' home. The plaintiff submitted that, in order to protect the welfare of the parties' child, as well as that of her own, and taking into account that the child was under the age of 12 (mumayyiz), she should, pursuant to art 150 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, be granted custody of the child. Moreover, that the defendant should be ordered to pay to the plaintiff IDR 5 million per month in child maintenance until the child had either reached adulthood or was independent. The plaintiff also submitted that a judicial divorce (talak satu bain sughra) was the only feasible option.

Following deliberations between the court and the plaintiff's legal representation, the plaintiff agreed to temporarily withdraw her application for divorce on the grounds that she was heavily pregnant. Accordingly, despite the defendant's absence from court, the parties remained married. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 261,000).

The parties were married on 15 March 2012 but had no children. They had begun to quarrel as early as two months after being married because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant:

1. had another wife, which he was dishonest about to the plaintiff;
2. drank alcohol and gambled, often coercing the plaintiff into providing him with money.

Problems escalated in July 2012 as a result of the defendant's selfishness and refusal to resolve matters with his other wife. The defendant left the parties' home, providing the plaintiff with no subsequent financial support. 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, 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) 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 21 May 2008 but had no children. They had lived with the plaintiff's parents for the first three nights of their marriage, before moving to the defendant's parents, where they then lived for two years and nine months. As early as October 2008, however, the plaintiff alleged that she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly because the defendant:

1. was often intoxicated and showed no signs of reforming;
2. was frequently abusive (verbally and physically) towards the plaintiff; and
3. frequently suspected the plaintiff was having an extra-marital affair.

On 6 February 2011, problems escalated when the plaintiff went to her parents' home to work on the rice padi her parents had given her. Before leaving, the plaintiff had requested the defendant's permission, but when the plaintiff returned two days later, the defendant became angry, stating that he had only granted the plaintiff permission to stay at her parents' home for one night, not two. The defendant then ordered the plaintiff to leave their home, and since then, the parties had remained separated (one year and three months). During that time, the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support. The defendant's family's efforts to make the parties reconcile were also to no avail. As a result, the plaintiff believed that the only feasible option remaining was divorce.

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, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The plaintiff married her husband on 31 December 1945, upon which her husband gave her a 20-acre plot of land as a dowry (mahar). The plot of land had been controlled by the plaintiff's husband's younger sibling since 1983 until the present. When the plaintiff's husband passed away, her mother-in-law asked to use the land until she passed away herself. When her mother-in-law passed away, the plaintiff requested of the defendant that the land be returned to her, but the defendant refused to do so. The plaintiff had also sought to resolve this dispute in a familial manner through deliberation and by making polite requests, but the defendant had not responded in a favourable manner himself, compelling the plaintiff to instigate proceedings.

In response to the plaintiff's claim, the defendant submitted that, when the plaintiff married her husband, the defendant himself was not yet an adult and, therefore, could not have known that the land constituted the plaintiff's dowry. Moreover, that he had sold the land in order that he have some money when he married his wife. Two years later he re-purchased the land, but he did not want to return it to the plaintiff because he believed it to be his inheritance from his parents. The plaintiff asserted that, as the land the defendant believed to have previously belonged to his parents was 35 acres, and the dowry land was 20 acres, only 15 of those acres actually belonged to the defendant.

The court found that the evidence submitted by the defendant did not support his case, whereas evidence submitted by the plaintiff showed that the 20 acres in question had indeed been given by the plaintiff's husband to the plaintiff as a dowry on the day of their marriage. Accordingly, the court ordered the defendant to transfer to the plaintiff the 20 acres of land.

The parties were married on 10 December 2006 and had two children (born: 22 February 2008 and 9 November 2013). They had lived with the plaintiff's parents in Padang for approximately five years, before moving to the defendant's parents' home until they separated. Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. After five years, however, it had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant had:

1. frequently brought other women home;
2. failed to show sufficient care for the plaintiff and their children; and
3. been an irresponsible husband, failing to provide enough for his family financially.

The plaintiff also submitted that whenever the parties would quarrel, the defendant would resort using profane language, which would upset the plaintiff. Familial mediation had also proven to be in vain. Problems escalated on 2 December 2014 when the plaintiff caught the defendant telephoning someone she did not know. Then the defendant became angry when the plaintiff suggested the parties collect their children from the plaintiff's parents' home, appearing to be more interested in talking to the person on his phone. This resulted in the defendant orally divorcing the plaintiff, after which the plaintiff left the plaintiff's parents' home for her own parents' home. Since then the parties had remained separated.

The plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra). 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 plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 30 March 2001, after having divorced in 1999. They had two children. Several years after remarrying, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly due to differences of opinion. The plaintiff submitted that this problem had not been insurmountable, however, as evidenced by the parties remarrying in 2001 for the sake of their children. Regardless, the parties would often quarrel, the plaintiff submitted, because the defendant had failed to appreciate her as his wife, and because the defendant would exacerbate trivial issues in order to start an argument with the plaintiff. The plaintiff also conceded that she would go quiet when the defendant would start arguing with her because she was embarrassed to be seen arguing with the defendant by the parties' children, their neighbours, and family.

For the past six years the parties had been sleeping in separate beds, after the defendant had chosen to sleep in another room. This had gravely affected the plaintiff. Problems escalated during Eid al-Fitr (Idul Fitri) in 2014 when the defendant confessed to having married another woman without the plaintiff's permission. The plaintiff learned from the defendant that his other wife lived in East Java, and that they had been married for the past two years. When given an ultimatum by the plaintiff, the defendant had chosen to maintain both marriages. As a result, the plaintiff felt there was no other course available but to divorce.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) 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 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 parties were married on 25 April 1997 and had two children. After marrying they had lived with the respondent's parents in Agam. The applicant submitted that, since the end of 2006, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent would go out drinking with her friends while the applicant was at work, and when the applicant confronted the respondent after seeing her drinking alcohol in a cafe, the respondent had denied any wrongdoing. Problems escalated at the end of 2008 when the applicant advised that the respondent not increase any of her debts. The respondent became angry with the applicant, forbidding him from interfering in her life. As a result, the applicant left the matrimonial home and returned to his parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the past seven years. The parties' families had not sought to make the parties reconcile, and the applicant submitted to the court that divorce (talak satu raj'i) was the only feasible option.

In her counterclaim, the respondent sought from the applicant IDR 2.5 million per month to cover costs associated with the parties' two children. The applicant submitted that he could only afford IDR 500,000 per month as his daily salary as a construction worker was only IDR 80,000.

The court 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. It also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 1 million in child maintenance.

The parties were married on 22 February 2001 and had one child. The applicant submitted that the marriage had been harmonious for the first eight years, after which it had then became quarrelsome. The applicant submitted that the primary reason for the disharmony was the respondent's failure to fulfil her spousal obligations, such as preparing meals on time, as well as obeying the applicant's wishes. Problems escalated in August 2011 when the respondent accused the applicant of having married another woman. This resulted in the respondent leaving the parties' home and returning to her parents' home, where she then remained for six months. Communal efforts to make the parties reconcile had also been in vain. The applicant submitted that divorce (talak satu raj'i) was the only feasible option, and that the respondent concurred.

The respondent, pursuant to arts 80(4)(a), 149(b), and 152 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, submitted a counterclaim for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted) compensation and mut'ah (divorce compensation). The applicant submitted that he could only afford to provide the respondent with IDR 4 million for iddah and a prayer instrument as mut'ah.

The court acceded to both parties' requests. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Laws, it acceded to the applicant's request for a divorce (talak satu raj'i). It also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 4 million for iddah, as well as provide her with a prayer instrument as mut'ah.

The parties were married on 16 July 2006. They had no children, despite having already sought both conventional medical and alternative infertility treatment. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage, however, was only harmonious for the first two years. In February 2008, the defendant, a police officer, returned to his original post in Bogor. The parties remained in contact for the first month but from then on the defendant rarely contacted the plaintiff, other than to request that she send him money. For the past three years the parties had remained separated, the defendant providing the plaintiff with no financial or emotional support throughout their time apart.

In February 2010, the plaintiff took leave from work and went to Bogor to ask the defendant why the parties had not been in more regular contact. When the plaintiff arrived in Bogor, however, she discovered that the defendant had remarried. The plaintiff asked the defendant why he had remarried only to be told that the defendant had wished to take the burden off his new wife. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's response left her feeling bewildered. Accordingly, she requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Pursuant to 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 acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years, and ongoing conflict.

In December 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) considered the question whether Muslim citizens who lived in the Greek province of Thrace could be required to submit to the jurisdiction of Islamic law, as detailed by local experts called muftīs. In Greek law, Islamic law usually governed matters of family law—such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance—in cases involving the Muslims in Thrace. This arrangement was a legacy of the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres and the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. When the ECHR considered whether this arrangement should persist, it considered a case in which a Muslim man had died, leaving everything to his wife in his will. His sisters contested the will, arguing that it improperly circumvented the authority of the muftīs. Greece’s highest court agreed with the sisters. With the will invalidated, the muftī distributed one-fourth of the estate to the widow, and the rest to the sisters, in accord with Islamic inheritance law. The widow appealed to the ECHR. This Court determined that the Greek government had misinterpreted the treaties, which did not require a separate legal framework for Muslims. It further noted that Greek case law was inconsistent about “whether the application of Sharia law [sic] is compatible with the principle of equal treatment and with international human rights standards.” In addition, the Court emphasized a right to "free self-identification”: people should be free to opt out of differential treatment from the government on the basis of belonging to a minority group, and the government should not force minorities into a special legal category in the name of protecting them. The Court held that Greece, by compelling the Muslim minority of Thrace to follow Islamic law, had violated Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

In Farooq Siddiqui v. Mst. Farzana Naheed,[1] the Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan (“the Court”)[2] considers whether surrogacy can be reconciled with Pakistani law and sharī‘a, and whether the law needs to be updated. The underlying case involved a Pakistani doctor living abroad who orally contracted with a Pakistani woman to serve as a surrogate, as his wife was unable to conceive, creating a “false drama of marriage” as a cover.[3] When the child came due, the surrogate refused to give the child to the doctor, and litigation commenced. The lower courts held the contract invalid and ordered the doctor to pay maintenance.[4] The Federal Shariat Court does not address the instant case specifically, but holds that surrogacy contracts, with the exception of “test tube babies,” are un-Islamic and void.[5]

[1] Farooq Siddiqui v. Mst. Farzana Naheed (2017), 2017 PLD (FSC 78) (Pakistan).

[2] As part of his project of Islamification of Pakistan, then-Prime Minister Zia created the Shariat Court with authority to decide whether Pakistani law is consonant with Sharia. Several justices are required to be Islamic law scholars. See Niaz A. Shah, Women the Koran and International Human Rights Law 101 (2006).  

[3] Supra note 1.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

In this excerpt from his treatise on judicial practice, the Shāfiʿī jurist Abū al-Ḥasan al-Māwardī (d. 450/1058) addresses about twenty-five legal issues pertaining to the role of translation and translators in Muslim courts. He then subdivides these issues into four major categories, namely:(1) the legal status of translation, where he investigates the question whether translation should be considered testimony (shahāda) or a simple report (khabar) and outlines the divergence between Shāfiʿī and Abū Ḥanīfa on the subject; (2) the status of the translator as the father or son of the litigant or as a woman; (3) the identity of one litigant as a foreigner; and (4) the identity of both litigants as foreigners. Māwardī then derives the eligibility requirements for translators in court from the eligibility requirements for witnesses, implying similarity between the two roles. Māwardī thus concludes that the fathers and sons of litigants may not act as translators in court. Likewise, women’s translation may be used only in monetary lawsuits (iqrār bi-l-amwāl), in which they must also be accompanied by the translation of another woman and a man. Women may not serve as translators in marriage-related cases (iqrār al-ḥudūd wa-l-manākiḥ), with the exception of cases concerning adultery, in which a woman may serve alongside at least three other translators. In his chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Mahmood Kooria uses this passage to point to a shift in the Shāfiʿī view on the status of translators and testimony, with Mawārdī expanding the Shāfiʿī treatment of this topic considerably.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of sources and other material used in and related to the book.

Ibn Ḥārith al-Khushanī recorded the following case as a ḥikāya, an anonymous report: A Christian appeared before the judge Aslam b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, petitioning to be executed. The anecdote offers insight into the historical role of judges during a period of religious dissent in the Umayyad Caliphate, while the author's narrative voice demonstrates past judicial approaches to rationality, humor, and violent penalization. 

This text is part of Maribel Fierro, The Judges of al-Andalus, forthcoming.

The parties were married on 5 November 2005 and had one child. The applicant submitted that, since 2006, he and the respondent had quarrelled regularly because the respondent:

1. did not want to join the applicant at the applicant's place of residence; and
2. often became angry/emotional and would mention divorce, as well as ordering the applicant to marry someone else.

The respondent had left the matrimonial home and returned to her parents' home on 11 August 2010, where she had remained for the four months leading up to the proceeding. During this time the parties had not communicated.

The respondent admitted to often being angry and mentioning divorce. She justified this, however, on the grounds that every time the parties were physically intimate the applicant would say he felt like the respondent was raping him. Accordingly, the respondent told the applicant that if he was not happy with the respondent, he should divorce her and remarry. The respondent also objected to the applicant's claim that the respondent had left the matrimonial home in August 2010, stating that she had left the matrimonial home then to spend Lebaran (Eid al-Fitr) with her parents in Bulukumba. Moreover, that the applicant even accompanied the respondent to Bulukumba and stayed for a week before returning to Makassar. The respondent further alleged that the applicant was yet to return to Bulukumba because he had already married another woman, and that the parties remained in contact via telephone because of their children.

Given the parties' evident ongoing conflict, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). It also ordered the applicant, pursuant to arts 149 and 160 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to pay to the respondent IDR 300,000 per month in child maintenance, as well as IDR 1 million in mut'ah (divorce compensation) and IDR 1 million in iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted).

The cassation applicant had previously lodged an appeal in the Surabaya Religious Court for an order to stop his daughter (aged 17) marrying her boyfriend. The Surabaya Religious Court dismissed the cassation applicant’s appeal and ordered him to pay court costs (IDR 166,000). The cassation applicant then submitted a request for cassation on 7 March 2012, claiming that the Surabaya Religious Court had made an error in judgment. The cassation applicant claimed that his daughter was underage when she lodged applications to the local Office of Religious Affairs for dispensation to marry. He was primarily concerned with his daughter's application for Determination of Guardianship. The cassation applicant alleged that:

1. his daughter was only 16 years of age when she lodged the application for a Determination of Guardianship, despite stating that she was 17 years of age on the application;
2. the Court should have taken into account that his daughter, being under 18, should not have been allowed to lodge legal documents or appoint an attorney to lodge them on her behalf;
3. his daughter was not an adult and, therefore, her actions were not in accordance with art 47 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, which states that a child below 18 years and unmarried remains in the custody of their parents insofar as they have not been divested of parental power, and that parents shall represent their child in any legal conduct in and out of court, and art 50, which states that a child under the age of 18, unmarried and not, under the authority of their parents, shall be placed in the care of their guardian.

The Supreme Court found that the Surabaya Religious Court did not misapply the law, nor did it make a judgment contrary to the law. Accordingly, it dismissed the cassation applicant’s request, and ordered the cassation applicant to pay court costs in the amount of IDR 500,000.