SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 14 May 2012 and had one child aged 3 years, who was in the care of the plaintiff at the time of the proceeding. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for the first five months. Since October 2012, however, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant was:

1. envious, even of his older brother; and
2. frequently angry for no apparent reason, which made the parties' home life unpleasant and disharmonious.

Problems escalated in November 2012 resulting in the defendant leaving the plaintiff. As familial intervention had failed to reconcile the parties' differences, the plaintiff submitted that divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) was the only feasible option.

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

The parties were married on 30 March 2004 and had two children aged 8 and 10 years, both of whom were in the defendant's care at the time of the proceeding. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for the first year. Since May 2005, however, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant would frequently abuse the plaintiff, both physically and emotionally. Problems escalated in August 2013 when the defendant physically assaulted the plaintiff again, resulting in the plaintiff leaving the defendant and returning to her parents' home. The plaintiff, therefore, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court acknowledged that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The applicants submitted that they had been married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 15 January 2000 and had four children. There were no bars to their marriage according to Islam but their marriage had never been registered by a state marriage registrar in accordance with current legislation. Accordingly, they requested that the court ratify their marriage.

In acceding to the applicants' request, the court noted that, pursuant to figure 22 of art 49(2) of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, and art 7(3)(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, no bar to the applicants' marriage existed for the purposes of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. Furthermore, the court acknowledged that the information provided by the applicants' two witnesses corroborated with the evidence submitted by the applicants.

The applicants submitted that they had been married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 14 December 1993 and had six children. There were no bars to their marriage according to Islam but their marriage had never been registered by a state marriage registrar in accordance with current legislation. Accordingly, they requested that the court ratify their marriage. Their application was dismissed, however, when both applicants failed to attend court.

The applicants submitted that they had been married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 8 March 2008 and had three children. There were no bars to their marriage according to Islam but their marriage had never been registered by a state marriage registrar in accordance with current legislation. Accordingly, they requested that the court ratify their marriage.

In acceding to the applicants' request, the court noted that, pursuant to figure 22 of art 49(2) of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, and art 7(3)(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, no bar to the applicants' marriage existed for the purposes of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. Furthermore, the court acknowledged that the information provided by the applicants' two witnesses corroborated with the evidence submitted by the applicants.

The parties were married on 3 July 1995. In his vows (sighat taklik talak), the defendant promised to fulfil his spousal obligations and to treat the plaintiff well. Moreover, he stated that the plaintiff may divorce him before a religious court (pengadilan agama) if he ever:

1. left the plaintiff for two consecutive years;
2. failed to provide the plaintiff with financial support for three months;
3. caused the plaintiff any physical or psychological harm; and/or
4. neglected the plaintiff for six months.

The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for 16 years. In May 2011, however, the defendant had left the plaintiff for no apparent reason, never to return. During that time the defendant neither provided the plaintiff with any financial support nor did he show any care for the plaintiff or communicate with the plaintiff, contrary to points 1, 2 and 4 of his marriage vows. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her a judicial divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i) of IDR 10,000.

In acceding to the plaintiff's application, the court acknowledged the defendant's absence from court, but also accepted the plaintiff's submissions, as well as the written evidence submitted and the witnesses she produced in court to corroborate her evidence. Pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff a divorce for a fee and ordered her to pay costs (IDR 176,000).

The parties were married on 13 October 2000 and had two children aged 14 and 10 years, both of whom were in the plaintiff's care at the time of the proceeding. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for the first 12 years. Since October 2012, however, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had rarely provided the basic necessities for his family, which would lead to conflict;
2. was emotionally abusive; and
3. had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support since February 2013 (the past three years approximately).

The plaintiff, feeling that divorce was the only feasible option remaining, requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court acknowledged that the parties could no longer fulfil the purpose of marriage as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds that the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years, and ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 18 December 1994. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious for the first nine years. Since April 2003, however, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. frequently gambled;
2. was frequently angry for no apparent reason;
3. had not secured any form of employment;
4. frequently went out at night;
5. was excessively jealous;
6. failed to provide for the plaintiff; and
7. had not been a leader of the parties' household.

Problems escalated in September 2015 when the defendant again accused the plaintiff of having an extra-marital affair with another woman. No longer able to tolerate the defendant's treatment of her, the plaintiff left the defendant and the parties had remained separated ever since. The plaintiff submitted that the most feasible option available to the parties was an irrevocable divorce (talak 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 applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 11 September 2015 but never had a wedding reception because, following their marriage, they both returned to their respective parents' homes. The applicant submitted that after he and the respondent's parents exchanged vows (ijab kabul) the respondent's parents left suddenly for no apparent reason. Moreover, that the respondent had taken her belongings back to her parents' home before the parties' marriage ceremony. The applicant believed, therefore, that the parties' marriage was untenable and requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

Despite the respondent's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. It also acknowledged that revocable divorce is regulated in art 118 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 5 May 2007 and had one child. The plaintiff was a divorcee and had a child from her previous marriage. The plaintiff submitted, however, that the parties' marriage had been disharmonious from the beginning because the defendant had:

1. been unemployed up until a year ago and had, therefore, been unable to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial support;
2. frequently pawned the plaintiff's belongings, including her camera, motorcycle, wedding ring, gas stove, and other furniture; and
3. been suspicious of the plaintiff, not allowing her to communicate with her ex-husband with whom she had a child.

The plaintiff submitted that the defendant's suspicions had not dissipated, even after the parties moved to live with the defendant's parents. Rather, the defendant's suspicions increased to such an extent that the defendant forbade the plaintiff from seeing her child from her first marriage. When the parties would quarrel, the defendant often resorted to physical violence, even whipping the plaintiff with a belt and damaging household items. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant's alcohol consumption compounded matters further and that he had even been unnecessarily suspicious of one of the plaintiff's married male customers.

The plaintiff submitted that problems escalated prior to Ramadhan in July 2014, when the defendant had frequently told the plaintiff to leave and that it would be better if the parties divorced ('lebih baik cerai saja'). On 30 September 2014, the plaintiff returned to her parents' home after the defendant ordered her to leave. On 4 October 2014, the plaintiff brought the parties' child to the defendant's home after she received a text message from the defendant making such a request. There the defendant trapped the plaintiff in a room where he strangled her with both hands, leaving the plaintiff powerless and unable to breathe.

Believing that the parties' marriage was damaged irreparably, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra). The court acknowledged that the parties' homelife was no longer harmonious, that the parties had been separated for seven months, and that familial intervention had failed to reconcile the parties' differences. Accordingly, pursuant to art 39(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 3 August 2015. They had lived at the respondent's home and had no children. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By April 2016, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial income. Problems escalated in May 2016 resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past month. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 4 September 2006. They had lived with the applicant's parents and had no children. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By May 2015, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial income, and no longer valued the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Problems escalated in June 2015 resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past year. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 1 October 2014. They had lived with the applicant's parents and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By April 2016, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial income, and no longer valued the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Problems escalated that same month resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past three months. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 22 May 2015. They had lived with the applicant's parents and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By November 2015, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial income, and no longer valued the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Problems escalated in December 2015 resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past six months. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 12 August 2004. They had lived with the respondent's parents and had two children. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By January 2016, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial income, and no longer valued the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Problems escalated in March 2016 resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past three months. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 24 April 2014. They had lived with the respondent's parents and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By April 2015, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial income, and no longer valued the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Problems escalated in March 2016 resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past three months. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 8 July 2012. They had lived with the applicant's parents and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By November 2015, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial income, and no longer valued the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Problems escalated that same month resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past eight months. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 7 October 2013. They had lived with the applicant's parents and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By January 2016, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial income, and no longer valued the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Problems escalated that same month resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past six months. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 30 April 2014. They had lived with the applicant's parents and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. By February 2016, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent was never satisfied with the applicant's financial income, and no longer valued the applicant as her husband and head of the family. Problems escalated in March 2016 resulting in the parties separating. They had remained apart for the past three months. The applicant, feeling the marriage was beyond repair, requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

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, acknowledged that, on the facts, the applicant had produced sufficient reasons to be granted a divorce. Accordingly, despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

Amendment 219(C) to the Policing and Crime Bill would require all religious marriages to comply with English and Welsh marriage laws. Baroness Cox of the House of Lords proposed and defended the amendment in her statements to the House of Lords on November 16, 2016.