SHARIAsource

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 22 October 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome after just one month because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide sufficient financial support to meet the parties' daily domestic needs;
2. had failed to obtain stable employment;
3. had failed to show his appreciation for the plaintiff as his wife, even physically assaulting her on a regular basis; and
4. had a temperamental nature and would often become angry with the plaintiff, often over insignificant matters.

The parties had subsequently been separated since 6 May 2016, after the plaintiff returned to her parents' home no longer able to cope with the defendant's treatment of her. The plaintiff submitted that she had concluded she had no other option but to irrevocably divorce the defendant (talak satu ba'in sughra). The plaintiff also requested that the parties' child remain in her care for the sake of the child's own welfare.

Despite the defendant's absence, 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 court, pursuant to arts 105(a) and 156(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, also granted the plaintiff custody of the parties' children on the grounds that one of the children was still below the age of 12 (belum mumayyiz), and that it was in the best interests of the other children to remain in the plaintiff's care.

A UK family court considered whether and how UK law recognizes a marriage conducted according to Islamic law that had not been accompanied by a civil law marriage. The husband contended that the couple was never married, and the wife—petitioning for divorce—insisted that they were. The two had signed an Islamic marriage contract (nikāḥ) accompanied by a ceremony abroad, lived together and had children together, and held themselves out as married for years both abroad and in the UK. The court concluded that, on those facts and considering the UK laws on marriage—as interpreted, for the first time, through the Human Rights Act 1998 and the best interests of the child—that the marriage was “void” or “voidable.” This determination meant that the couple was not validly married under UK law but that their union was also not considered a non-marriage. Instead, as a void marriage, their union was something akin to what Islamic law would label a “defective marriage.” The court had essentially concluded that, although a marriage was not properly concluded or registered according to the law, the steps taken toward one would in some measure be recognized by the law and entitle the wife to certain legal protections upon dissolution of the union. In this case, this meant that the wife was entitled to a decree of nullity from the court, and that the wife could take advantage of certain UK civil law remedies for maintenance and child custody upon dissolution.

The Act replaced the Iranian Family Protection Act 1975 and modified other family law provisions as embodied in the Civil Code and the Divorce Act 1992. It contains procedural matters (Family Courts, Family Consultation Centers) as well as substantial ones (marriage, divorce, custody, nafaqa, alimony and pensions) and the criminal sanctions. Major changes introduced generally are:

A) The Family Court now involves a female consultant judge who is to give her opinion in each case, which the sitting judge (a man as in other courts) has to consider, but not to follow, in deciding the case;

B) The jurisdiction of the Family Court is now extended to additional matters, including child adoption, embryo donation, and sex change;

C) The process for divorce by mutual consent is facilitated;

D) The value of the Mahr (or the portion of the Mahr) for collecting which the debtor imprisonment provisions can be invoked is now limited to a specified amount (equal to 110 gold coin);

E) Temporary marriage needs not be registered now save in specific situations;

The parties were married on 16 June 1997 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome in 2014 when she discovered that the defendant was carrying on an extra-marital affair with another woman.

The parties had been separated since May 2015, after the defendant banished the plaintiff from the parties' home. The plaintiff submitted that she had lost hope that the parties would reunite, and that the parties' children were in the care of the plaintiff. Accordingly, she 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, and citing Surah ar-Rum verse 21 of the Qur'an, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court, pursuant to arts 2(b) and (c) and 14 of Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection, and 105 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, also granted the plaintiff custody of the parties' children on the grounds that one of the children was still below the age of 12 (belum mumayyiz), and that it was in the best interests of the other children to remain in the plaintiff's care.

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the Republic of India (Republic of India/Bharatiya Ganarajya), based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under India's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has no legal status. 

This Country Profile provides a basic overview of the legal history and institutional structures of the Lebanon Republic (Al Jumhuriyah al Lubnaniyah), based on research produced by GlobaLex at NYU Law School and the Library of Congress. Under Lebanon's Constitution, Islamic law (sharīʿa or fiqh) has no legal status. 

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.

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 25 February 2005 and had two children. By 2011 they had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of:

1. the defendant having had an extra-marital affair with another woman, and then marrying that woman in 2013, unbeknownst to the plaintiff;
2. the defendant arbitrarily and regularly physically assaulting the plaintiff when they would argue;
3. the defendant having physically assaulted the parties' children;
4. communication between the parties having broken down;
5. the defendant no longer appreciating his parents-in-law; and
6. the plaintiff no longer feeling valued by the defendant as his wife.

The plaintiff sought a divorce on the grounds that the parties' differences were irreconcilable. In her claim for custody of the parties' two children, aged six and one, the plaintiff cited Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 105 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, which both require children under the age of 12 to remain in the custody of the mother. The plaintiff also cited art 41 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 105 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, in support of her claim that the defendant was required to provide the plaintiff with IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance payments.

The court found that, due to ongoing conflict between the parties, the purpose of marriage, as envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a happy and peaceful home life, was no longer feasible. Therefore, there were sufficient reasons to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra), pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with 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 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.

The parties were married on 28 July 2001 and had two children. At the beginning of their marriage, they had agreed to live in a home owned by the applicant in Bogor. When the respondent was seven-months pregnant with their first child, however, the parties agreed to move to the respondent's parents' home in Bekasi. Initially, when the parties would have a disagreement, the applicant thought it was fleeting and merely part and parcel of domestic life. The applicant preferred to concede defeat, rather than perpetuate further disagreement and quarrelling. Since their third year of marriage, however, the applicant submitted that the parties quarrelled regularly and were no longer compatible. The applicant submitted that this was due to:

1. a difference of opinion between the parties;
2. the respondent not being able to adopt the lifestyle of the applicant, as required in order for the applicant to earn a living;
3. the respondent not fulfilling the applicant's requests to meet his physical needs while their first child was between the age of 4-18 months;
4. the respondent not fulfilling the applicant's requests to meet his physical needs for 12 months after she was four-months pregnant with their second child;
5. after a while, the applicant himself no longer wanting to be physically intimate with the respondent because he no longer loved her;
6. the applicant having suggested to the respondent after the birth of their first child that they no longer live with the respondent's parents so that they could become more independent, and so that the applicant could feel more comfortable and free to do as he pleased without the respondent's parents present;
7. the applicant finally being able to convince the respondent that they should purchase their own home not too far from her parents' home; and
8. having their own home meant the applicant could invite family and relatives to their home whenever he chose.

The applicant conceded that as the parties' children were under the age of 12 (not yet mumayyiz), they should remain in the custody of the respondent, but that he would provide financial support for their schooling and living expenses. The applicant was also prepared to provide the respondent with IDR 6 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted) and IDR 1 million in mut'ah (divorce compensation). The applicant also specified as joint assets of the parties a house in Bekasi and a 2010 Proton Exora vehicle.

The respondent conceded many of the points of the applicant's claim, but submitted that the applicant had been duplicitous, by engaging commercial sex workers and other women for sex (zina), since 2003. The respondent also submitted that one month into her first pregnancy she had been ordered by her obstetrician to stay in bed for two weeks after she had experienced some bleeding associated with the pregnancy. This had caused her to want to avoid being physically intimate with the applicant, rather than any desire not to value her husband. At the time of giving birth to their first child, the respondent had also experienced trauma and further bleeding, which had continued to haunt her. When the respondent had begun to overcome this physical and psychological trauma, the applicant was no longer interested in being physically intimate with the respondent. Moreover, at the time, the respondent would never have guessed that the applicant was being duplicitous.

The court found that ongoing conflict between the parties satisfied the sufficient reason requirement to grant the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Langsa Shari'a Court (lower court), which had granted the respondent a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), but also ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant IDR 5 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), IDR 2 million for mut'ah (divorce compensation) and IDR 1 million for kiswah (clothing). The lower court also granted the appellant custody of their two children, and ordered the respondent to pay IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance until the children had become of age. In regards to the parties' joint assets, the lower court ordered the parties to split on a 50/50 basis their house, two motorcycles, as well as a debt of IDR 94,033,368 owed to Bank BPD Aceh.

The Court concurred with the lower court's judgment, but increased the amounts of money made payable to the appellant, based on the respondent's income as a school teacher and food seller. The Court also removed the obligation on the respondent to pay kiswah as it was not included in the appellant's initial counterclaim, and was already included in the revised iddah payment.

The Court concurred with the lower court in its dismissal of other elements of the appellant's counterclaim with regards to another parcel of land and a separate debt the appellant claimed was a joint-debt of the parties.

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 8 March 1999, after which they lived in a rental property for three years, before moving to their own home. The plaintiff submitted that the parties had been happily married for 13 years and had two children. By December 2009, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome after the defendant had had an extra-marital affair with a woman named Ega from West Java. The plaintiff submitted that she had learned about the affair from a work colleage of the defendant, and after conducting her own investigations, had confirmed what she had been told. By December 2011, the parties had begun to quarrel again after the defendant had had another extra-marital affair, this time with a woman named Yuli from Biudukfoho (the parties' maid). On 29 March 2012, the parties quarrelled yet again after the defendant received a phone call and SMS around 11:30pm from another woman. When the plaintiff inquired with the defendant as to who the woman was, the defendant told the plaintiff she was a caregiver at an orphanage in Kupang, which the defendant had coincidentally frequented.

As a result of the defendant's conduct, the parties had been separated since 30 March 2012. The plaintiff requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) in order to bring this unfortunate set of circumstances to an end. The plaintiff also sought IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance from the defendant, whose salary was IDR 3.5 million per month.

The court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. It acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The plaintiff later withdrew her claim for child maintenance payments, but the Court did grant her custody of the parties' two children.

The parties were married on 25 August 2008 (NB: the court's findings state they were married on 21 August 2008) and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that eight months into her first pregnancy the parties had quarrelled and the defendant had grabbed and pushed her to the floor with utter disregard. At the time, the plaintiff reported the defendant to the authorities for acts of domestic violence, however, the defendant fled for Bombana in search of gold and his parents. The plaintiff's parents advised her to reconcile with the defendant and to withdraw her police report, which the plaintiff did for the sake of the parties' marriage.

In 2011, the parties appeared to have reconciled their differences, already having had their first child. The defendant then proceeded to have an extra-marital affair with another woman, while choosing to spend all his income on this other woman and none on the plaintiff. The plaintiff also submitted that during an encounter with the other woman, she had learned that the defendant had been carrying on this extra-marital affair while the plaintiff was pregnant.

The defendant had also been incarcerated for transporting petroleum. Upon his release from prison, the plaintiff began working at Kredit Colombus (a credit company) to make ends meet. When the defendant, however, forbid her from working the parties had begun to quarrel again. The plaintiff submitted that their disputes were also the result of the defendant:

1. demanding that the plaintiff return to him the spending money with which he had provided her, if he himself had run out of money;
2. forbidding, and becoming angry with, the plaintiff from working to pay for domestic household needs;
3. damaging the plaintiff's belongings and that of the household when he became angry;
4. physically assaulting the plaintiff when he became jealous for no established reason;
5. often threatening the plaintiff, causing her great fear and trauma;
6. regularly instructing the plaintiff to divorce him; and
7. controlling the parties' finances and only providing the plaintiff with money when she needed/requested it.

While the parties' families had endeavoured to make the parties reconcile, following Eid Mubarak in 2014, the plaintiff left the defendant and returned to her parents' home, where she had remained until the time of the court proceeding. During that time, the defendant continued to terrorise and threaten the plaintiff, leaving the plaintiff with no other option but to seek an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra). The plaintiff also sought custody of the parties' two young children, as well as IDR 1.5 million per month in child maintenance until the children were adult and independent.

The court deferred to expert Islamic legal opinion in Kitab Ia'natul Thalibin Juz III, which dictates that a court is to grant a wife a divorce if she is no longer happy with her husband. Moreover, citing art 39 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 65 of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, and art 5 of Law No. 23 of 2004 on the Abolition of Domestic Violence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request. In its findings, however, it did not explicitly accede to the plaintiff's request for child maintenance payments.

Chapters on nominate contracts (endowment, sales, options, barter/ mu‘āwaḍa, hire and lease, partnerships -shirka, muzāra‘a, musāqāt, muḍāraba-, reward/ju‘āla, deposit, fungible and non-fungible loan, agency, financial and personal guaranty, assignment, settlement, pledge, gift), shuf‘a, wills, inheritance, marriage and divorce, mahr, and alimony took almost all of its substance from prominent Shi’i fiqh treatises. Other chapters (classification of properties, easement, usufruct, general rules of obligations and contracts, nationality, registration of civil status, domicile, engagement, guardianship, and evidence) are mainly influenced by Swiss and French Civil Codes and Swiss Code of Obligations.

The parties were married on 18 November 2005 and had two children (born 2006 and 2007). The cassation respondent had submitted that the parties were not suitable from the beginning and that they had quarrelled regularly because:

1. the cassation applicant would often return home very late without reason, even during her pregnancy with the parties’ first child, a time when the cassation respondent most needed support from the cassation applicant;
2. the cassation applicant seldom provided financial support, and what he did provide was insignificant considering his salary as a member of council (anggota dewan);
3. when living with the cassation applicant in the cassation applicant’s parents’ home, the cassation respondent felt unsafe because she was often left alone with the cassation applicant’s brothers;
4. when the cassation respondent raised the issue of financially supporting the marriage, the cassation applicant would hit and verbally abuse her;
5. when the cassation respondent finally left the cassation applicant and lived with her parents, when she tried to return to live with the cassation applicant, the fighting would reoccur, with the cassation applicant often intoxicated;
6. the cassation applicant often slandered the cassation respondent’s family.

The physical abuse continued and, on 29 November 2008, the cassation applicant attended the cassation respondent's place of work, where he hit and kicked the cassation respondent, resulting in her being hospitalised with an injury and bruising to her leg. The level of abuse peaked on 24 October 2009, when the cassation applicant struck the cassation respondent in the head several times. Fearing for her welfare and that of the children, the cassation respondent locked herself and the parties' children in a bedroom and escaped out a window, fleeing for her parents’ home. The cassation respondent then attempted to file a report with the local police, but subsequently withdrew it because, as a member of council (anggota dewan), he was a public figure. On 4 November 2009, the cassation respondent eventually attempted to file for divorce in the Semarang Religious Court. During the process, however, the cassation applicant made amends and declared his love for the cassation respondent. The cassation respondent subsequently withdrew her application and the parties attempted to reconcile. On 23 April 2011, the parties had an argument and the cassation applicant declared that he wanted to divorce the cassation respondent and focus on his career in public office. The cassation respondent returned to the cassation respondent’s parents’ home but the divorce was not properly concluded. On 24 November 2011, the cassation applicant was arrested by the Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi) and reported in the mass media. The cassation respondent alleged that the cassation applicant's conduct had caused her and their children psychological damage and distress, and that the marriage was no longer tenable.

The cassation respondent, in the first instance, had requested that the local religious court terminate the marriage and grant her custody of the children, as well as to order the cassation applicant to pay court costs. The lower court (830/Pdt.G/2012/PA.Smg), pursuant to art 39(f) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the cassation respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba’in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, and custody over the children with visiting rights to the cassation applicant. The lower court, however, ordered the cassation respondent to pay court costs (IDR 491,000).

The cassation applicant lodged an appeal with the Semarang High Religious Court. The Semarang High Religious Court (091/Pdt.G/2013/PTA.Smg) upheld the lower court's judgment and ordered the cassation applicant to pay court costs (IDR 150,000).

On 2 January 2014, the cassation applicant submitted a request for cassation to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Semarang High Religious Court had not applied the law properly, that there were inadequacies and contradictions in the witness statements, that the cassation respondent was having an extra-marital affair with another man, that the children needed a father figure, and that it was his responsibility to be head of the household. The cassation applicant also submitted to the court that he was concerned the cassation respondent was not fit to have custody of the children.

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 Semarang High Religious Court, dismissed the cassation applicant’s reasons for cassation, and ordered him to pay court costs (IDR 500,000).