SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 25 February 1998 and had their one and only child on 28 June 1998. In March 1999, the defendant left for Malaysia to work for two years, returning in March 2001, when he then lived at the plaintiff's parents' home for approximately three months. In June 2001, the plaintiff left to work in Taiwan and returned around December 2002. Then in June 2003, the defendant left for Malaysia for another two years to work, returning in June 2005, where he then lived with the plaintiff for approximately 10 months. In April 2006, the plaintiff left for Hong Kong to work for more than three years, returning on 14 November 2009.

Initially, the parties' marriage had been harmonious. In June 2005, however, or since the defendant had returned from Malaysia, the parties had quarrelled regularly, largely because the defendant had only sent the plaintiff money on three occasions. Moreover, upon returning to Indonesia, the defendant refused to work, and the plaintiff could only find work as a waiter at a soto roadside stall (warung). To meet their domestic needs, in April 2006, the plaintiff returned to Hong Kong to work. During this time the defendant had begun to expect that the plaintiff would send money home on a monthly basis. When the plaintiff returned on 14 November 2009, she discovered that the defendant had sold her gold jewellery, as well as their Honda motorcycle. Moreover, the defendant forbade the plaintiff from seeking financial assistance from the defendant's parents, which caused the parties to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff was concerned that the defendant was not being entirely truthful with him. Feeling that their differences were irreconcilable, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce.

Pursuant to art 34(1) 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, as well as Kitab Fiqhus Sunnah Jilid II, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), and ordered her to adhere to 90 days of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted) before marrying again, pursuant to art 39(1)b of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay costs (IDR 516,000).

The parties were married on 12 September 1984 and had two children (born 15 June 1985 and 9 April 1992). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious, however, by June 2006 it had become quarrelsome. The cassation respondent had submitted that the cassation applicant:

1. in July 2006, had begun hitting her and demanding a divorce;
2. married another woman without the cassation respondent's permission; and
3. would often leave the home without any reason or warning.

Problems escalated and, on 26 October 2009, the cassation applicant left the cassation respondent. The cassation respondent, in the first instance, requested that the local religious court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra), as well as IDR 3 million per month in child maintenance.

The defendant submitted a counterclaim against the plaintiff for:

1. divorce compensation (iwad) (IDR 2 billion); and
2. permission to divorce the plaintiff before the Court (ikrar talak).

In the first instance, the Sidoarjo Religious Court (2881/Pdt.G/2012/PA.Sda) found in favour of the cassation respondent, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra), and ordering the cassation applicant to pay to the cassation respondent IDR 3 million per month in child maintenance, plus IDR 650,000 in court costs. The court dismissed the cassation applicant's counterclaim.

The cassation applicant then lodged an appeal with the Surabaya High Religious Court. The Surabaya High Religious Court upheld the judgment of the lower court, and ordered the cassation applicant to pay court costs.

On 11 December 2013, the cassation applicant submitted a request for cassation to the Indonesian Supreme Court based on the following grounds:

1. the two lower courts had not considered his counterclaim for divorce compensation (khuluk) in the amount of IDR 2 billion; and
2. the cassation applicant’s counterclaim was for land that he had previously purchased for the cassation respondent.

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 Surabaya High Religious Court, dismissing the cassation applicant’s reasons for cassation, and ordering him to pay court costs (IDR 500,000).

The parties were married on 3 March 2012 and had their first and only child on 1 June 2014. The plaintiff submitted, however, that the parties had quarrelled regularly since December 2012 because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant would take medicinal drugs that would often make him angry. On one occasion, for instance, in mid-February 2013, the plaintiff asked the defendant not to bring his friends home with him. In response, the defendant grabbed the plaintiff by the hair and put his hands around her neck.

Unbeknownst to the plaintiff at the time, the defendant had incurred a IDR 2 million debt with the owner of a travel service after failing to pay the owner at the time the service was rendered. Problems escalated when, on 25 June 2014, the plaintiff's parents inquired with the defendant as to the debt, to which the defendant still would not admit. When the plaintiff's parents asked the parties to resolve the matter on their own time, the defendant had concluded that the plaintiff's parents were telling him to leave their home. The defendant then left the parties' home, and the parties had remained separated for approximately seven months.

At the end of September 2014 the defendant spent the night with another woman, which the plaintiff learned about from the woman in question. Then, on 20 December 2014, the defendant picked up the plaintiff, unbeknownst to her parents, and brought her to his parents' home in Pesisir Selatan, West Sumatra. When the plaintiff's parents came to pick her up, the defendant threatened them with a knife. Believing her marriage to the defendant was no longer tenable, the plaintiff sought 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, acceded to the plaintiff's request, granting her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) as envisaged by art 119(2)c of the Compilation of Islamic Laws on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 11 April 2004 and had four children. The applicant submitted that, since 2009, he and the respondent had quarrelled regularly as a result of the applicant's advice to the respondent on how best to conduct herself as a good wife. Problems escalated on 15 April 2014, resulting in the respondent leaving the applicant and their children. The applicant maintained that divorce was the only feasible option.

The respondent responded to the applicant's allegations, stating that it was not just she who had not been a good wife, but the applicant who had not been a good husband, evidenced by his having had an extra-marital affair with another woman. While the respondent had no objections to the applicant's application for divorce, she requested:

1. custody of the parties' four children;
2. that the applicant replace the respondent's jewellery that he had sold;
3. that the applicant repay debts related to the pre-marriage customary dowry; and
4. monetary compensation for iddah (three-month period following divorce having been granted).

The applicant denied having had an extra-marital affair, but rather asserted that the respondent had had an extra-marital affair of her own. The applicant also requested that the court grant custody of the parties' first and second children to the applicant, while granting custody of the parties' third and fourth children to the respondent. The applicant also asserted that, while two pieces of the respondent's jewellery had been sold to pay for instalments on a motorcyle, he was prepared to replace them, as well as to provide the respondent with monetary compensation for iddah, provided it was compatible with his own income, which was sporadic at best. In regards to repaying the dowry, the applicant could not ascertain the amount as it was a family member who had arranged it at the time of the parties' wedding.

Following deliberations, the applicant orally withdrew his application for divorce, while the respondent provided the court with verbal assent to the withdrawal. The court treated both parties' in-court communications as a binding agreement, pursuant to art 1338 of the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata), and ordered the applicant to pay court costs (IDR 381,000).

The parties were married on 14 September 2013 and had one child. Initially, they lived with the plaintiff's parents for three months in Banda Aceh, before moving to a shop rented by the plaintiff's parents out of which a mobile phone business was operated (also in Banda Aceh). The plaintiff submitted that the happiness in the marriage had begun to dissipate by January 2014 because:

1. the mobile phone business was managed poorly by the defendant's nephew, while the defendant, after spending the day socialising with his friends, would return and coerce the plaintiff into taking the day's takings to meet the parties' own domestic needs, despite not contributing to the business himself, physically assaulting her if she did not comply with his wishes;
2. the defendant would physically abuse the plaintiff while she was pregnant; and
3. the business' lack of success resulted in the plaintiff having to request money from her parents (four times per month).

Problems escalated on 19 February 2015 when the plaintiff refused to return home from an event at her parents' home with the defendant, having already been slapped several times that day by the defendant. When she refused, the parties began to quarrel while still at the event.

Accordingly, the plaintiff sought a judicial divorce on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Goverment Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and (h) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The plaintiff also sought custody of the parties' child on the grounds that the child was under the age of 12 (belum mumayyiz), and should therefore remain with his mother, pursuant to art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, as well as IDR 3 million per month in child maintenance, pursuant to art 105(c) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

In a letter dated 15 April 2015, however, the plaintiff withdrew her application for divorce, stating that she and the defendant had reconciled their differences. The Court accepted the withdrawal, and ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs (IDR 466,000).

The parties were married on 20 February 2004 and had two children, both of whom were now in the care of the respondent. The applicant submitted that, since June 2013, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent had failed to appreciate the applicant as her husband, often insulting and shaming him, as well as arguing with him. Problems escalated on 7 August 2013, resulting in the parties separating.

The respondent submitted, in response, that much of her behaviour and poor treatment of the applicant was in response to the applicant having had extra-marital affairs since the respondent was pregnant. In compensation for the applicant being granted a divorce, the respondent sought IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance, IDR 6 million for iddah (three-month period following divorce), as well as IDR 150 million for the construction of the parties' home in Panaikang, Pangkep, South Sulawesi, or that the home be registered in the name of the parties' two children. The applicant was content with the parties' children remaining in the respondent's care, but submitted that IDR 500,000 per month in child maintenance, IDR 1.5 million for iddah, and IDR 5 million for the home was sufficient.

The court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975 and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds of ongoing conflict. It granted the respondent custody of the parties' children, however, while ordering the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance, IDR 3 million for iddah, and IDR 5 million in regards to the construction of the home, as the parties had only contributed IDR 10 million towards its construction collectively. It also noted that information provided by witnesses corroborated to suggest that the applicant had indeed been having extra-marital affairs.

The parties were married on 5 May 1997 in Dili, East Timor, and had two children. They lived in Dili for two years and two months before moving to Ujung Pandang, South Sulawesi, for one year and five months, before the applicant moved to Atambua in search of employment in 2001, with the respondent and their first child joining him in 2002.

The applicant submitted that the marriage had been harmonious initially, but from January 2010, it had become quarrelsome. In February 2010, the applicant saw the respondent getting a lift on the back of another man's motorcycle. Around March 2010, the applicant saw the respondent with that other man at the parties' kiosk. Problems escalated on 12 November 2010, when the respondent left the parties' home with that other man and the parties' children, without the applicant's permission or blessing, the respondent having confessed to having been physically intimate with the man.

The applicant requested that the Court grant him permission to divorce the respondent, as well as custody of the parties' two children. The Court acceded to the applicant's request for 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. As the children were both below the age of 12 years (belum mumayyiz), pursuant to art 105 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the Court would usually be required to grant the respondent custody of the children, at least until they had reached the age of 12 years, after which they could decide with which parent they wanted to live. That said, the Court noted that the parties' daughter was already in the custody of the respondent and should remain there. With regards to the parties' son, who had been in the care of the applicant, while he was not year 12 years of age, as the respondent did not object to his remaining in the care of the applicant, the Court found it preferable for him to remain in the applicant's care.

The parties were married on 2 April 2015, after which they lived with the respondent's parents in Agam for approximately one week, before moving to a rental property. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for a mere 10 days before the respondent frequently became angry with the applicant for coming home late from work.

Problems escalated at the end of June 2015 when the respondent accused the applicant's child of groping the applicant's genitals while the applicant was sleeping. The applicant refused to believe the respondent's accusation, while the applicant's child similarly denied it. The respondent, however, remained steadfast in her accusation leading to the parties arguing and, the following day, the applicant took the respondent to her parents' home. The parties had remained separated for the next two months. Familial intervention had failed to reunite the parties, and the applicant sought the court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

As a counterclaim, the respondent sought IDR 2.5 million to cover her expenses for the two-month period the parties had been separated leading up to the proceeding. Furthermore, for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), the respondent sought IDR 3 million, and for mut'ah (divorce compensation) 2.5 grams (1 mas) of 24-carat gold. The applicant submitted that he could only afford the following:

1. IDR 600,000 for the two months the parties were separated;
2. IDR 500,000 for iddah; and
3. one 24-carat gold ring with a weight of 0.625 grams (one-quarter of a mas).

The court acceded to the applicant's request, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds of ongoing conflict. With regards to the respondent's counterclaim, the court ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent the following:

1. IDR 600,000 for the two months the parties were separated;
2. IDR 900,000 for iddah; and
3. one 24-carat gold ring with a weight of 1.25 grams (one-half of a mas).

The parties were married on 12 January 2001 and had one child. The applicant submitted that, by the beginning of 2014, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent had:

1. undervalued the applicant as her husband by, for example, not being at home when the applicant would return home for lunch, without first requesting the applicant's permission, and becoming angry when the applicant would confront the respondent about this; and
2. undervalued the applicant's family, frequently refusing to meet members of the applicant's family when they would visit.

Problems escalated at the end of 2014 when the respondent, for no apparent reason, refused to lend the applicant money to assist with his sale of daily items, despite the fact that the applicant had helped the respondent purchase bananas to be taken to market for sale. After the ensuing argument, the applicant left the respondent for his parents' home, where he had remained for the eight months leading up to the proceeding. The applicant had, however, continued to provide financial support for the parties' child. The applicant, accordingly, sought the court's permission to divorce (talak satu raj'i) the respondent.

Other than refuting many of the applicant's submissions, the respondent also counterclaimed for the following:

1. IDR 4.5 million for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted);
2. a prayer (shalat) instrument as mut'ah (divorce compensation); and
3. IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance.

The applicant, in response, claimed he could only afford the following:

1. IDR 500,000 for iddah;
2. a prayer instrument as mut'ah; and
3. IDR 1.5 million in child maintenance.

The court acceded to the applicant's request, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds of ongoing conflict. With regards to the respondent's counterclaim, the court ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent the following:

1. IDR 2 million for iddah;
2. a prayer instrument as mut'ah; and
3. IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance.

Prior to marrying on 21 December 2010, the parties had agreed that the plaintiff would move to South Aceh once she had completed her degree at the Indonesian Higher Education Management Institute (Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Manajemen Indonesia), Meulaboh, in a year's time. The plaintiff submitted, however, that after the parties had married and begun building a home together, the defendant had said he wanted to divorce the plaintiff. In April 2011, it became apparent that the defendant had misled the plaintiff and her family about where he had been living prior to marrying the plaintiff. On 17 April 2011, at 8:30pm, the defendant sent the plaintiff a text message stating that the plaintiff was no longer his wife and that she was welcome to file for a divorce with the shari'a court in Meulaboh. The plaintiff also submitted that, while the parties were married, the defendant had failed to provide her with any financial support, while denigrating her and her family.

After having not returned home for two months, the defendant returned to apologise, vowing to mend his ways. The parties attended the local office of religious affairs on 4 July 2011, the parties executing a promissory document, the contents of which stated that the defendant agreed to meet all the financial and emotional needs of the plaintiff, vowing not to treat the plaintiff in an appropriate manner again. The defendant, however, failed to abide by the contents of the document. Moreover, he then sent the plaintiff and plaintiff's father a text message saying he would file for a divorce with the local shari'a court. This caused the plaintiff great emotional suffering and moved her to file for 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 on Marriage, 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 10 February 2008 and had two children (the parties' three-year old child was currently in the care of the defendant's parents in Sorong, Papua, while the parties' one-year old child was in the care of the plaintiff). The plaintiff submitted that the parties had not been married long before the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant would consume alcohol excessively, gamble, carry on extra-marital affairs, and come home in the middle of the night. When the parties would argue the defendant would also become physically violent towards the plaintiff.

Problems escalated in mid-May 2010 when the defendant hit the plaintiff with a plank of wood while telling her he was leaving her. The parties had remained separated since.

The plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), that the parties' three-year old child be placed in her custody, and that it order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff:

1. IDR 11 million in spousal maintenance backpayments;
2. IDR 2 million for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted);
3. IDR 1 million as mut'ah (divorce compensation); and
4. IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance.

Purusant to 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 on the grounds of ongoing conflict. It also acceded to her request to be granted custody of the parties' two children. Taking into consideration the defendant's income as a tukang ojek (motorcycle taxi driver), it also ordered him to pay to the plaintiff:

1. IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance;
2. IDR 5.5 million in backdated spousal maintenance; and
3. IDR 1.5 million for iddah.

This fatwa states that the Islam Jama'ah sect commenced in Indonesia in the 1970s. As its teachings were misled and misleading, and led to disquiet among Indonesian society, its interpretation of Islam was prohibited by the government in 1971. Islam Jama'ah, however, continued to operate under different names, which continued to change until 1977-78. The philosophy of Islam Jama'ah was that there were 72 categories of Muslims who were not part of Islam Jama'ah and would, therefore, be directed to hell.

The sect believed it had to appoint a Leader of Believers (Amirul Mukminin) as its central leadership; a leader who must be obeyed. Adherents had to pledge allegiance to this Leader in order to be guaranteed passage to heaven, and the only rightful and permissible Islamic teachings came from ther Leader. Adherents of the sect also had to cut off ties with persons from these other categories, even if those people were their parents; they were not allowed to pray behind people who were not adherents of Islam Jama'ah; they were not allowed to wear clothing for prayers that had been touched by people who were not adherents unless it had been cleansed; husbands even had to endeavour to make their wives join the sect, and if their wives refused, they would have to divorce them. A legitimate marriage was one officiated by the sect's leader, and for a sermon to be legitimate it would have to be conducted in Arabic.

This fatwa states that Islam Jama'ah, Darul Hadits (or whatever other pseudonym the sect may have adopted), is contrary to the teachings of Islam, and that its dissemination is designed to destablise the state. It implores Muslims to avoid its teachings and to return to the pure teachings of Islam with the intent and desire to similarly save those who have already chosen Islam as their religion from the wrath of Allah. It also implores people to report to their local public prosecutor any evidence of activities conducted by Islam Jama'ah.

The applicant, Suryani, requested that the Constitutional Court review the constitutionality of art 49 (and its elucidatory statement) of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary. Article 49 of Law No. 7 of 1989 states: 'Religious courts are tasked and authorised to investigate, determine, and resolve cases in the first instance between persons of the Islamic faith in the areas of: a. marriage (perkawinan); b. inheritance (waris); c. wills (wasiat); d. gifts (hibah); e. endowments (wakaf); f. alms-giving (zakat); g. infaq; h. shadaqah; and i. shari'a economy (ekonomi syari'ah). The applicant submitted that art 49 circumscribed his constitutional right to freedom of religion and to practise that religion in accordance with that religion's teachings, as guaranteed by arts 28E(1), 28I(1) and (2), and 29(1) and (2) of the Constitution.

In dismissing the application, Justice Moh. Mahfud MD, on behalf of the court, noted that the applicant's submissions were incompatible with the relationship between the state and religion in Indonesia. Specifically, Moh. Mahfud MD held that Indonesia is not a country based on one religion, nor is it a secular state that transfers religious affairs to the individual and society. Rather, Indonesia is a state based on the belief in Almighty God (ber-Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa), which protects every person's right to practise their respective religion. In abiding by the Indonesian state philosophy of Pancasila ('five principles'), national law must, therefore, guarantee state ideology and territorial integrity, while facilitating just and courteous religious tolerance. It follows that Indonesian national law is a vehicle for national unity and that the Indonesian state is not based on majoritarianism or minoritarianism, ethnicity or race. While it can be said that Islamic law constitutes a source of national laws, it is not the sole source thereof, with customary (adat) law, Western law, and other traditional legal sources also serving as sources of national law.

The plaintiff submitted a claim for child maintenance from the defendant (her biological father), who was previously married to her biological mother from 1995-2001. Since September 2000, four months before her parents divorced, until the time of the proceeding, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had not provided her with any financial support, either via her biological mother or directly. The plaintiff submitted that, from the age of 4-19 years, the defendant had neglected his financial obligations to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff quantified at IDR 1.5 million per month, or IDR 264 million in total for the past 14 years and eight months. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant was obligated to provide her with IDR 2 million per month in financial support until she reached 21 years of age, and that as a university lecturer with a PhD, he earned sufficient income to afford these payments.

The defendant submitted an objection to the plaintiff's case on the grounds that the plaintiff's biological mother had unilaterally changed the plaintiff's name and altered her birth certificate, the new certificate having been issued on 11 January 2007. Meanwhile, the birth certificate the defendant had in his possession was a copy of the original (dated 8 February 1996). The defendant submitted that the effect of this alteration was that it was no longer clear who the plaintiff's actual biological father was.

As part of the defendant's primary defence, he submitted that, following his divorce from the plaintiff's mother, he had finalised all financial issues through deliberatons with the plaintiff's great-aunt (now deceased), as well as the matter of the custody of the plaintiff. At the time, the defendant had abided by the plaintiff's mother's wishes and allowed the plaintiff to remain in her mother's care until she was of an age where she could knowingly choose which parent she wished to follow.

The defendant also suggested to the court that it was more likely that the plaintiff's mother had instigated the claim, given that there had been no tension in the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant, as well as the fact that the parties had only recently reunited in September 2014 after more than 13 years apart. Moreover, the defendant's relationship with the plaintiff's mother had been fractured at best, meaning that the defendant had not known of the plaintiff's specific whereabouts, other than that she had been living with her mother and grandmother in Makassar. In short, the lack of communication between the defendant and the plaintiff's mother made providing the plaintiff with financial assistance logistically unfeasible. Indeed, when the plaintiff visited the defendant with her aunt at his residence for the first time in 13 years, the defendant happily provided the plaintiff with IDR 1 million, while the defendant's father (the plaintiff's grandfather) gave her IDR 500,000. The defendant informed the court that the plaintiff later requested IDR 8 million from the defendant to cover certain educational costs. As the defendant had only recently returned from completing postgraduate study in Yogyakarta at the time of the request, however, the defendant and his wife could only afford to provide the plaintiff with IDR 4 million, which the plaintiff had refused.

The court dismissed the defendant's objection on the grounds that the plaintiff's original birth certificate had never been declared null and void by the authorised agency, and, therefore, its legal authority remained intact.

In regards to the plaintiff's claim, the court noted the conflicting laws as to the legal age of an adult: while art 47(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 47(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, define an adult as someone who is 18 years of age, art 98 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws defines an adult as a person of 21 years of age. Meanwhile, customary law (hukum adat) stipulates 15 as the relevant age. In choosing to follow that legislation that defined the legal age as 18, the court thereby found that the plaintiff was already an adult as she was 19 years of age. In reaching its decision, the court considered that the plaintiff and defendant had been separated for 13 years, that the defendant and defendant's father had offered the plaintiff IDR 1.5 million collectively on their first meeting in 13 years, and that the plaintiff had refused to accept IDR 4 million from the defendant to cover educational costs. The court also cited Indonesian Supreme Court Decision No. 608 K/AG/203 (23 March 2005), where the Supreme Court declared that the obligations of a father to provide financially for his child were Lil Intifa rather than Lil Tamlik, that is, the obligation to meet a child's needs is shared by the child's parents, and therefore, does not rest solely on the father (art 77(3) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws; art 45(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage). Accordingly, back payments were not necessary as the child's past needs were assumed to have already been met. Pursuant to the defendant's concession that he was happy to provide the plaintiff with financial assistance, provided it was within his own means, as well as surat Al Baqarah verse 233, the court ordered the defendant to pay to the defendant IDR 2 million per month until she reaches 21 years of age.

The first year of their marriage was harmonious, however, from thereon the parties had begun to quarrel regularly because, the applicant submitted, the respondent:

1. frequently directed profane language towards, and hit, the applicant, even over minor matters; and
2. would become angry if the applicant gave money to his daughter (from a previous marriage).

Problems between the parties escalated and, on 15 May 2012, when the respondent became angry that the applicant was helping his son-in-law renovate his house, the applicant physically assaulted the respondent, and then left her. The parties had remained separated since (for approximately five months). The applicant's family's attempts to make the parties reconcile proved to be in vain. Believing there was no hope for the parties to reunite, the applicant requested that the Court grant him a divorce.

The respondent denied having directed profane language at the applicant, having physically assaulted him, or having been angered by the applicant providing his daughter with money. The respondent also disputed the claim that the applicant helping his son-in-law renovate his house had upset her; rather, she submitted, it was the applicant who was angry and had, therefore, hit the respondent.

The respondent submitted her own counterclaim, noting that the applicant had provided her with a 10 x 10m plantation as a dowry (mahar), and that the parties had, as a joint asset, a 25-acre plantation. The respondent sought that the dowry plantation be returned to the applicant, but that she acquire the 25-acre plantation.

The applicant submitted that the respondent had never enjoyed control of the dowry property, and that the respondent should not be granted ownership of the 25-acre plantation. Moreover, that the parties had other joint assets that the respondent had not disclosed to the Court, which were:

1. pledged land (IDR 10 million);
2. a stilted house, (6m²);
3. 40 tiles (30cm²);
4. installation costs for one kilometre of electricity (IDR 3.2 million);
5. Malaysian gold purchased in 2008, in the form of a 20-gram necklace, and two 7-gram rings (IDR 8 million);
6. one water pump (IDR 500,000); and
7. a hajj deposit in both parties' names.

The respondent submitted that, as the applicant's daughter had often come to the dowry plantation to take some of the plantation's yield, without the respondent's permission, the respondent would return the dowry plantation to the applicant in exchange for the 25-acre plantation. The respondent also submitted that installation costs for a kilometre of electricty were not a joint asset because that money was the result of the respondent selling her property for IDR 3.5 million.

The court acceded to the applicant's request for a divorce, granting a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court noted, however, that, based on witness evidence, as well as the parties' submissions, the respondent had not been a disobedient or defiant wife (nusyuz), and that, because it was the applicant who left the matrimonial home, the respondent was entitled to receive financial maintenance payments from the applicant. The court ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 300,000 per month for three months (IDR 900,000) for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted). In addition, the court ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 300,000 in mut'ah (divorce compensation).

The court dismissed the respondent's claim over the 25-acre plantation, but granted her the dowry plantation on the grounds that it had been in her possession since the parties married. The court concurred with the applicant regarding the seven joint assets, ordering the respondent to provide to the applicant 50 per cent of those assets.

The parties were married on 29 May 1994. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since May 2008, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious, primarily because the defendant had had an extra-martial affair. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant deliberately had another woman collect him from their home, where the plaintiff and the parties' children were, and take him to the airport for a flight to Israel. When the defendant returned from Israel on 31 May 2008, rather than returning home, the defendant went to the other woman's home. The defendant returned to the plaintiff's home on 2 June 2008. Problems escalated on 4 June 2008 when the defendant requested the plaintiff's permission to marry the other woman, since which time he had also failed to execute his duties as a husband or head of the household. The plaintiff submitted that she did not believe the defendant's temperament would have a positive influence on their children.

The defendant refuted these submissions, claiming that the cause of disharmony originated in 2004 when the defendant discovered that the plaintiff was still in contact with her ex-boyfriend. Moreover, that the woman with whom he was accused of having an extra-marital affair was merely a colleague, and that the two had never conducted themselves in an inappropriate manner. In December 2009, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff had told their children she had a new boyfriend and that she would introduce him to the children, before divorcing the defendant and taking the children to Jakarta to be with her new boyfriend. Furthermore, on 9 March 2010, the plaintiff left for Bali saying she had a business meeting there for one day. While in Bali she switched her mobile phone off and never provided the defendant or their children with any information as to her well-being or whereabouts. The defendant also claimed that on 14 March 2010, the plaintiff surreptitiously left for Bali again, where a friend of the defendant's saw her and her boyfriend in a hotel room. The plaintiff returned four days later, again having provided the defendant with no information as to her well-being or whereabouts. Since returning from Bali, the defendant claimed the plaintiff did not want her to touch him anymore, while admitting she had been involved with her boyfriend while in Bali. She had not even returned to the matrimonial home since then, leaving the defendant to take care of their children. The defendant told the court that the plaintiff had even changed her Facebook account status in March 2010 to 'not married'.

The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that the parties' ongoing conflict constituted a sufficient reason to grant the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in sughra). It declined, however, to rule on the custody of the two children.

The parties were married on 19 May 2012. They had no children. The applicant submitted that, since the beginning of June 2012, he and the respondent had quarrelled regularly. This was the result of:

1. the parties' frequent difference of opinion;
2. the appellant reverting to Christianity (Protestantism) from Islam; and
3. the respondent's temperamental and emotional nature, which would often result in the respondent becoming vulgar and using profane language, which left the appellant feeling that to continue domestic life with the respondent would be untenable.

Consequently, the parties had separated for approximately six months leading up to the proceeding. The applicant had also attempted to deliberate with the respondent to reach a truce, but to no avail. Accordingly, the applicant applied to the court for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The respondent disputed the applicant's three primary submissions, maintaining that it was the applicant who was temperamental, aggressive, and had threatened to divorce the respondent. More specifically, it was the applicant who had instigated the quarrelling so that he had a legal reason to divorce the respondent (ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975), because he had already reverted to Christianity, and had become involved with another woman.

In her counterclaim, the respondent sought the following monetary compensation, in accordance with the applicant's monthly salary of IDR 20 million: IDR 45 million for iddah (100-day period following divorce) and IDR 150 million for mut'ah (divorce compensation). The respondent also asserted that she had spent IDR 104,568,000 of her own money on the apartment in which the parties had lived in Central Jakarta prior to marrying the applicant, as well as IDR 69.5 million on personal effects (total: IDR 174,068,000).

While the court acceded to the applicant's claim that the parties' marriage was untenable, it could not grant the applicant himself a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) because he had already reverted to Christianity. Instead, pursuant to the 2010 revised edition of the Guidelines on the Implementation and Administration of the Religious Judiciary (Pedoman Pelaksanaan Tugas dan Administrasi Peradilan Agama), it granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) and ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 15 million for iddah, as well as IDR 50 million for mut'ah. The court acceded to the respondent's claim that she had paid IDR 174,068,000 of her own money towards accommodation and personal effects prior to marrying the applicant, stipulating the monetary value of the parties' joint assets as IDR 53,832,000. The court ordered the applicant to transfer to the respondent IDR 26,916,000, and to auction the parties' property and divide the proceeds if necessary. The court also ordered the applicant to pay costs of IDR 416,000.

The parties were married on 17 January 2005 but had no children. After marrying in Bau-Bau, the parties had returned to Ambon and lived in a rental property from 2005-2006, before moving to their own home in December 2006. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2008, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair in Ambon and Jakarta. The plaintiff had learned of the affair when she called the defendant and the other woman in question answered his phone, resulting in the plaintiff and other woman arguing over the phone.

The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant had failed to disclose to her that, after the parties had agreed to rent out their property for one year, the defendant had rented it out for two years, spending the proceeds from rent payments on the other woman. The defendant had also confessed to having a daughter with a non-Muslim woman, the child now being in the care of the defendant's older sister, as well as marrying another woman, with whom he had a four-year old daughter.

Problems escalated on 13 Feburary 2011 when the defendant extended the term of the rental agreement for their property without first consulting the plaintiff. The defendant then spent the rent proceeds on the other woman, the plaintiff submitted.

The defendant submitted that he did not live in Ambon, but rather in Central Jakarta, and therefore the Ambon Religious Court lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. Moreover, he rejected the plaintiff's submission that he had used proceeds from renting their home to fraternise with another woman. Rather, the defendant submitted that he had used that money to cover the plaintiff's university fees (the plaintif was attending university in Makassar and the defendant did not have sufficient finances to cover the costs). The defendant also rejected the plaintiff's submission that he had married another woman with whom he had a four-year old daughter.

The defendant also submitted that from the IDR 17 million per annum he made from renting the parties' home, he had spent IDR 4 million on plumbing, IDR 5 million on the issuance of a certificate from the National Land Body, provided the plaintiff with IDR 4 million to discharge a debt she owed to a colleague, and IDR 2 million to pay an instalment to the landowner as the land had not yet been paid-off in full.

Dismissing the defendant's claim that the court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, the court found that, based on both parties' submissions, it was evident that the parties were no longer compatible and had already been separated since February 2011. Pursuant to 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 sughra).

The parties were married on 20 October 1990 and had two children. The cassation respondent had submitted that during the marriage the parties had accumulated joint assets (harta bersama), comprising:

1. property title no. 1218, in the name of the cassation applicant to the value of IDR 4.5 billion, also in the cassation applicant’s possession;
2. property title no. 171, in the name of the cassation applicant to the value of IDR 500 million, also in the cassation applicant’s possession;
3. a pharmacy, in the name of the cassation applicant to the value of IDR 35 million, also in the cassation applicant’s possession; and
4. one vehicle to the value of IDR 300 million, in the name of the cassation applicant, and in the cassation applicant’s possession. 

These joint assets became the object of dispute between the parties. The cassation respondent had brought a claim in the Semarang Religious Court for his share of the assets. He submitted that the cassation applicant was uncooperative in transferring his lawful share of the assets. The cassation respondent submitted that he had repeatedly tried to claim his share of the assets but that the cassation applicant continually refused to cooperate. The cassation respondent alleged that the cassation applicant’s refusal to transfer the listed items, or equal value of the assets, 50-50 between the parties, contravened the principle of the division of matrimonial assets, as contained in the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

In the first instance, the Semarang Religious Court (No. 1607/Pdt.G/2012/PA.Smg) on 22 July 2013, found in favour of the cassation respondent, ordering a 50-50 division of the assets in dispute, and ordered both parties to pay court costs (cassation respondent: IDR 1,871,000; cassation applicant: IDR 775,000).

The cassation applicant lodged an appeal with the Semarang High Religious Court (No. 233/Pdt.G/2013/PTA.Smg), which amended the decision of the Semarang Religious Court, ruling in favour of the cassation respondent and ordering the cassation applicant to pay court costs (IDR 150,000).

The cassation applicant lodged a request for cassation on 6 March 2014. The cassation applicant submitted that the Semarang High Religious Court did not follow the regulations and misapplied the law because it did not take into account the obligations of each party to third parties when apportioning the division of the assets. The cassation applicant submitted that:

1. the properties subject to dispute were purchased with her own money;
2. during the construction of the house the cassation respondent had never provided financially for the family, despite having a sizeable income; and
3. the cassation respondent had not provided a financial contribution towards the education of the children.

The cassation applicant also submitted that the cassation respondent had omitted several joint assets from his initial claim:

1. property in the name of the cassation applicant valued at IDR 1.3 billion;
2. a vehicle valued at IDR 80 million;
3. proceeds of the sale of various items to the value of IDR 260 million;
4. another vehicle valued at IDR 80,000,000;
5. debts owed to several banks and persons; and
6. medical and education expenses for the parties' two children.

The Supreme Court did not accept the cassation applicant’s reasons for cassation, and, 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, dismissed the appeal. The cassation applicant was ordered to pay court costs (IDR 500,000).

The parties were married on 13 May 2006 and had one child. After marrying, the parties lived with the plaintiff's parents for several weeks, before returning to Bali, where the defendant was stationed for work, and where the plaintiff was completing her medical degree at Universitas Mahassaraswati in Denpasar. While in Bali, however, the parties did not live together: the defendant lived in a rental property in Jembrana, while the plaintiff lived in a boarding house (rumah kost) in Denpasar. On one occasion, when the plaintiff was late to collect the defendant from a bus terminal, the defendant struck her in the head. While she was wearing a helmet at the time, the plaintiff still decided not to reprimand the defendant. The parties maintained these living arrangements until the plaintiff completed her studies in 2007, when the plaintiff then moved into the defendant's rental property in Jembrana.

While living together, the defendant's fondness for cockfighting became a source of tension between the parties. When angry, the defendant would often throw whatever objects happened to be in front of him, and, on one occasion, threw an empty gallon container at the plaintiff while she was pregnant. The plaintiff claimed she then cried and went to her room, while the defendant allegedly shouted 'go home to your parents' ('pulang saja ke orang tuamu'). The plaintiff later moved to the defendant's parents' home in Jember, East Java, while the defendant remained in Jembrana. The parties occasionally argued on the telephone, as a result of the plaintiff frequently hearing that the defendant was fraternising with another woman.

Around the fasting period in 2008, when the plaintiff was seven-eight months pregnant, the plaintiff heard from the neighbour and landlord of the defendant's rental property that a woman had visited the defendant from 8pm-3am. Upon receiving this information, the plaintiff became convinced that the defendant was having an extra-marital affair. When the parties spoke again on the telephone, the defendant occasionally uttered profanities that left the plaintiff feeling upset and in tears.

As the plaintiff was entering her ninth month of the pregnancy, the defendant visited her at his parents' home. One evening the plaintiff inquired with the defendant as to whether or not he had had an extra-marital affair. In response, the defendant threw an ashtray, causing the plaintiff to run into her room and lock the door out of fear. The defendant chased her, and, attempting to enter the room, proceeded to cause damage to the door handle. Concerned that the neighbours might overhear the commotion, the plainitff opened the door to her room, only for the defendant to start causing damage to a cupboard door with his fists. When the plaintiff retired to bed, the defendant then jumped up on the plaintiff's bed, almost landing on the plaintiff's pregnant stomach. After the defendant's mother intervened, the defendant sat down calmly and confessed to having had an extra-marital affair. The defendant acknowledged he was prepared for the plaintiff to divorce him, but maintained that the child was his and would go with him.

The next day the defendant apologised to the plaintiff for his wrongdoing, and the plaintiff spoke with the woman with whom the defendant had had the extra-marital affair. The woman confirmed the information provided to the plaintiff by the landlord. The next day the plaintiff experienced some pregnancy-related bleeding and was brought to Bina Sehat Hospital. The hospital noted that, as the plaintiff had experienced some psychological stress, the pregnancy would be expedited.

In 2009, after the child was born, it lived in Jember with the defendant, per the defendant's wishes. While the plaintiff was working in Kendari for two years as a civil servant, the defendant equivocated as to when he would bring the child to visit the plaintiff in Kendari. As a result, the plaintiff often visited her child in Jember. During her visits to Jember, the plaintiff became aware from things the child would say that the defendant was not showing the child any affection, and that the child was being deprived of its mother's love, something, the plaintiff told the court, pivotal to any child's development. When the plaintiff was about to return to Kendari, the child would cry while hugging the plaintiff and calling 'Mama... Mama... Mama...'.

The plaintiff had also provided the defendant with significant financial support to assist him in establishing a catfish business. During one of her visits to Jember, several months after a catfish harvest, the defendant's mother informed the plaintiff that the defendant had visited a shaman (dukun) to ensure that the plaintiff was not happy in Kendari. When the plaintiff inquired with the defendant about this, in front of the defendant's mother, the defendant punched the plaintiff in the face several times, felling the plaintiff in the corner of her room.

After deliberately limiting her communication with the defendant, the plaintiff re-established contact in November 2012.The defendant, however, only used the opportunity to order the plaintiff to arrange the parties' divorce. The parties did not communicate at all in 2013, after the defendant requested that the plaintiff not disturb him. From the beginning of 2010, the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support, and the parties had not been physically intimate since August 2012. Pursuant to arts 39, 42 and 44 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 56 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the plaintiff sought a judicial divorce and custody of the parties' child.

Despite acknowledging that court-sanctioned mediation had been unsuccessful in reconciling the parties' differences, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application. The court acknowledged that the defendant had disputed and repudiated the plaintiff's submissions, but more significantly, it stressed that it was dismissing the application on the grounds that the two witnesses produced by the plaintiff had never seen the parties quarrel, did not know the nature of the parties' domestic situation, and the information they had provided to the court was, therefore, immaterial. On the same grounds, it dismissed the plaintiff's application for custody of the parties' child.