SHARIAsource

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 9 May 2002 by the village imam. The second applicant's uncle had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a one-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had two children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 3 October 1989 by the village imam. The second applicant's older sibling had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, although the first applicant's first wife had passed away prior to this marriage. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 8 September 1983 by the village imam. The second applicant's older sibling had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had three children. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage, and in order that they could obtain a birth certificate for their children.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 12 September 1994 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a two-gram gold ring paid for with cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had a child. The applicants had never divorced, nor had they ever received any formal objection to their union. The applicants required their marriage to be ratified (itsbat nikah) in order that they have proof of their marriage.

Acknowledging that the first applicant was not married to four other women, that the second applicant was not married to another man, nor in the process of carrying out the period of iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and that the marriage did not contravene the prohibitions on marriage articulated in arts 8-11 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, or arts 39-42 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the application. Pursuant to arts 8(2), 35(a) and 36 of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, and art 7(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court ordered the applicants to register their marriage with a marriage registrar in their local jurisdiction.

The applicant married her husband in 1961, in accordance with Islam, before having six children. While they were related by blood, their relationship was not forbidden under Islam as they had not shared a wet-nurse, nor were there any objections to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicant's husband passed away due to illness on 24 May 2011, however, as they had never received an official marriage certificate because the marriage took place in 1961, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, the applicant could not access her deceased husband's pension, to which she was entitled. The applicant, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of her marriage.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court noted that the marriage had met the witness requirement (two witnesses), pursuant to arts 24 and 26 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the marriage guardian requirement, pursuant to art 19 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the dowry requirement (mahar), pursuant to art 30 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

In 1972, the applicants were married in accordance with Islamic law at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's father served as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), two witnesses were present, and the dowry was a bicycle purchased with cash. The applicants were first cousins, however, this did not preclude them from marrying according to Islam or current laws. They subsequently had three children. Moreover, the applicants had never shared a wet-nurse, nor did anyone object to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicants, however, had never received an official marriage certificate because their marriage had taken place in 1972, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The applicants, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of their marriage in order to access state subsidies such as the pension.

Acceding to the applicants' request, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, noted that as the marriage had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, it qualified as the type of marriage that could be ratified.

In 1959, the applicants were married in accordance with Islamic law at the second applicant's parents' home. The second applicant's father served as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), two witnesses were present, and the dowry was a 10 acre property. The applicants were second cousins, however, this did not preclude them from marrying according to Islam or current laws. They subsequently had three children. Moreover, the applicants had never shared a wet-nurse, nor did anyone object to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicants, however, had never received an official marriage certificate because their marriage had taken place in 1959, prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The applicants, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of their marriage in order to access state subsidies such as the pension.

Acceding to the applicants' request, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, noted that as the marriage had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, it qualified as the type of marriage that could be ratified.

The applicant had married her husband on 25 October 1960, in accordance with Islam, before having six children. While they were second cousins, their relationship was not forbidden under Islam as they had not shared a wet-nurse, nor were there any objections to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicant's husband passed away due to illness on 13 April 2011, and in order to gain access to his pension, as well as her entitlements as a widow, the applicant required a marriage certificate. As they had married prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, however, one had never been issued. The applicant, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of her marriage.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court noted that the marriage had met the requirements that there be two witnesses present, that there be a marriage guardian present, and that there be a dowry. Therefore, for the purposes of art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and arts 4(1) and 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the applicants' marriage could be declared lawful. Moreover, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, found that the marriage could be ratified on the grounds that it had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The applicant had married her husband on 16 August 1942, in accordance with Islam, before having 11 children. While they were second cousins, their relationship was not forbidden under Islam or current laws as they had not shared a wet-nurse, nor were there any objections to their marriage at the time of the ceremony. The applicant's husband had passed away due to illness on 5 April 2011, and in order to gain access to his pension, as well as her entitlements as a widow, the applicant required a marriage certificate. As they had married prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, however, one had never been issued. The applicant, accordingly, sought from the court the ratification of her marriage.

Acceding to the applicant's request, the court noted that the marriage had met the requirements that there be two witnesses present, that there be a marriage guardian present, and that there be a dowry. Therefore, for the purposes of art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, the applicant and her husband could be deemed husband and wife at law, and, pursuant to art 7(1), (2) and (3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, their marriage was deemed lawful on the grounds that it had taken place prior to the promulgation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The parties were married on 22 April 2007 by the village imam. The respondent's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry (mas kawin) had been a prayer instrument purchased with cash. After the parties were married, they had lived together in Kendari for two weeks with the applicant's family before returning home to Ambon. The parties also had one child, who was currently in the respondent's care.

The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious until the beginning of 2009, after which time it had become quarrelsome. The applicant submitted that this was because the applicant's first wife and her family would often threaten the respondent, telling her that the applicant intended to divorce her. This would, in turn, leave the respondent feeling threatened and demanding that the applicant divorce her. The applicant submitted that the parties had separated in December 2010, both parties having neglected their spousal obligations to one another. Accordingly, the applicant requested the Court's permission to divorce the respondent (talak satu raj'i).

The court acceded to the applicant's request, but also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 2.7 million for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), and IDR 3.5 million as mut'ah (divorce compensation).

The applicant submitted that on 8 June 1960 she had married her husband in accordance with Islamic law. Her father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) before two witnesses, and with a dowry (mahar) of three grams of gold. No legitimate reasons impugned their marriage. The applicant's husband had passed away on 6 November 2015, his death certificate being issued on 10 November 2015. He left behind only his pension, which the applicant could not access because she and her husband had never been issued with a marriage certificate. Accordingly, the applicant requested that the court ratify her marriage in accordance with current legislative provisions.

The court, noting its exclusive jurisdiction over the ratification of Islamic marriages as guaranteed by art 49(a) of Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, as well as the fact that the concrete facts submitted by the applicant accorded with art 7(2) and (3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the application.

The applicant submitted that he and the respondent were married on 27 March 2016. The respondent's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry had been a prayer instrument and a five-gram gold ring. The parties had first met in November 2015, before the applicant proposed to the respondent in December 2015, and then requested the respondent's parents' permission to marry their daughter on 10 January 2016.

After the parties consummated their marriage, the applicant suspected that the respondent was not a virgin, despite the fact that the parties had not yet been physically intimate. On 1 April 2016, the applicant took the respondent to Dr Sazili, an obstetrician/gynaecologist, who ascertained that the respondent was already five months pregnant. The respondent then conceded that she had been physically intimate with another man before the parties were married, and that the unborn child's father was the other man.

The respondent, however, submitted that the Curup Religious Court was precluded from adjudicating the case because she was registered as a Bengkulu resident. After the applicant conceded as much, the Court acceded to the respondent's objection and abstained from passing judgment.

The parties were married on 4 Feburary 2016. The plaintiff's father had served as the marriage guardian (wali nikah), the parties were married by the local imam, two witnesses had been present, and the dowry (mas kawin) had been a two-gram ring purchased with cash. The parties did not, however, have a marriage book (buku nikah), which the plaintiff required for administrative purposes in order to divorce the defendant.

The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had only been harmonious until the end of February 2016, when it had become increasingly quarrelsome. The plaintiff, therefore, requested that the court declare the parties' marriage lawful, and grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

On the day of the proceeding, however, the defendant failed to attend because, despite having been summonsed by the court bailiff, he had never received the summons as no one in the defendant's community, including authorities, knew him. Moreover, the court had counselled the plaintiff to first locate the defendant and then seek to reconcile with him. The plaintiff, acting on the court's advice, opted to withdraw her application.

The parties were married on 10 September 2007 but had no children. The plaintiff's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry (mahar) had been IDR 2 million and a prayer instrument. Since the beginning of 2008, however, the marriage had been disharmonious, primarily because the defendant would frequently leave the matrimonial home, even for up to one year at a time. On 3 January 2013, the defendant left for Java in search of employment, never to return. While the plaintiff had waited for three years and six months for the defendant to return, realising that the purpose of marriage, as prescribed in Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, had been frustrated, the plaintiff filed an application for a judicial divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court acknowledged that the information provided by the plaintiff's two witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions, and that the defendant had not returned home for over three years. The purpose of marriage, as prescribed in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, that being to create an everlasting and joyful family, was no longer feasible. Pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two years.

The parties were married on 26 May 2013 and had one child. The plaintiff's older brother had acted as the marriage guardian (wali nikah), and the dowry (mahar) had been the cash value of 3.35 grams of gold. Since 25 July 2014, however, the marriage had been disharmonious. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant left in search of employment, never to return, and without leaving a forwarding address. Realising that the purpose of marriage, as prescribed in Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, had been frustrated, the plaintiff filed an application for a judicial divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra).

The court acknowledged that the information provided by the plaintiff's two witnesses corroborated with the plaintiff's submissions, and that the defendant had not returned home, nor had he provided a forwarding address. The purpose of marriage, as prescribed in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, that being to create an everlasting and joyful family, was no longer feasible. Pursuant to art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court therefore acceded to the plaintiff's application on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two years, and ongoing conflict.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 10 March 2009 before two witnesses. The second applicant's sibling had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 30,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a widower and the second applicant a divorcee. The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties also had two children and no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge found that the parties' marriage met the requirements contained in art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws because there had been a bridegroom, groom, marriage guardian, two witnesses, and the parties had exchanged vows (ijab kabul). The judge also cited expert Islamic jurisprudence (Ahli Fiqhi) found in Kitab Buhyatul Mustarsyidin, which stated that a marriage affirmed by witnesses present was indeed a marriage. Therefore, pursuant to art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge acceded to the applicants' request.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 14 February 1982 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 100,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor (aged 34 years) and the second applicant a virgin (aged 27 years). The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties also had two children and no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge found that the parties' marriage met the requirements contained in art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws because there had been a bridegroom, groom, marriage guardian, two witnesses, and the parties had exchanged vows (ijab kabul). The judge also cited expert Islamic jurisprudence (Ahli Fiqhi) found in Kitab Buhyatul Mustarsyidin, which stated that a marriage affirmed by witnesses present was indeed a marriage. Therefore, pursuant to art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge acceded to the applicants' request.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 14 October 2014 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 360,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor (aged 18 years) and the second applicant a virgin (aged 19 years). The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had no children but no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge found that the parties' marriage met the requirements contained in art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws because there had been a bridegroom, groom, marriage guardian, two witnesses, and the parties had exchanged vows (ijab kabul). The judge also cited expert Islamic jurisprudence (Ahli Fiqhi) found in Kitab Buhyatul Mustarsyidin, which stated that a marriage affirmed by witnesses present was indeed a marriage. Therefore, pursuant to art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge acceded to the applicants' request.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 4 December 1999 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 100,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor (aged 19 years) and the second applicant a virgin (aged 17 years). The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had three children and no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge found that the parties' marriage met the requirements contained in art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws because there had been a bridegroom, groom, marriage guardian, two witnesses, and the parties had exchanged vows (ijab kabul). The judge also cited expert Islamic jurisprudence (Ahli Fiqhi) found in Kitab Buhyatul Mustarsyidin, which stated that a marriage affirmed by witnesses present was indeed a marriage. Therefore, pursuant to art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge acceded to the applicants' request.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 10 August 1998 before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mas kawin) had been IDR 100,000. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a widower (aged 31 years) and the second applicant a divorcee (aged 27 years). The parties were not blood relatives nor had they shared a wet-nurse. There were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had four children and no third party had ever sought to impugn the sanctity of their marriage. They had never, however, received a marriage certificate issued by the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court ratify their marriage for civil administration purposes.

The sole judge requested that the parties withdraw their application on the grounds that they had failed to submit relevant evidence and produce witnesses.