SHARIAsource

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.

The applicants submitted that they were married in accordance with Islamic law on 15 March 2005 in Klang, Malaysia, and had one child. Since they had married the parties had never obtained a marriage certificate in either Malaysia or Indonesia. Regardless, the parties requested that the court ratify their marriage.

On the evidence produced by the applicants, the court, pursuant to art 7(3)(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and citing kitab I'anatut Thalibin, vol IV, page 254, acceded to their application.

The parties were married on 7 June 2011 and had one child. Initially, the marriage was harmonious. By 2014, however, it had become quarrelsome because, the applicant submitted, the respondent would:

1. become excessively suspicious of the applicant; and
2. frequently accuse the applicant of carrying on an extra-marital affair.

In February 2015, the parties separated and had remained that way for approximately nine months. The applicant initially requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). After court-sanctioned mediation, however, the applicant withdrew his application for divorce.

The applicants submitted a request to have their marriage ratified. On the day their application was her in court, however, they failed to attend or send any proxies in their place. The court, therefore, ruled that their application failed and ordered them to pay costs (IDR 211,000).

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.

The parties were married on 4 November 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome by 2013 because the defendant:

1. rarely returned home;
2. had not disclosed his many debts to the plaintiff; and
3. had been unnecessarily suspicious of the plaintiff for no apparent reason.

The parties had subsequently been separated since 18 March 2015, during which time the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support. The plaintiff submitted that she had concluded she had no other option but to irrevocably divorce the defendant (talak satu ba'in sughro).

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 plaintiff submitted that the parties were married on 1 July 2010 and had one child. The plaintiff also submitted that after six months the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had carried on an extra-marital affair/clandestine marriage with another woman, having also impregnated the other woman;
2. had rarely provided the plaintiff with financial support; and
3. had physically assaulted the plaintiff when she confronted the defendant over his extra-marital affair.

On 16 September 2016, after learning about the defendant's extra-marital affair through a photograph on social media, the plaintiff left the parties' home to live with a family member.

While the plaintiff initially requested that the court grant her a divorce, she then requested that the court allow her to withdraw her application for divorce. The court acceded to the plaintiff's request.

The applicant submitted that the parties were married on 2 November 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff also submitted that after six months the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent:

1. was egotistical and disrespectful towards the applicant;
2. was temperamental whenever the parties would argue; and
3. no longer obeyed the applicant.

On 15 September 2016, after the respondent had rejected the applicant's advice, the parties began to sleep in separate beds.

While the applicant initially requested that the court grant him a divorce, he then requested that the court allow him to withdraw his application as the parties had already reconciled their differences. The court acceded to the plaintiff's request.

Translated, this fatwā reads as follows:

Number: 35

According to Islamic law, which of the spouses, who are separated because of incompatibility and by divorce, has the right to protect, educate and restrain their child?

Answer: According to Islam, the right to protect, educate and restrain these children belongs to the mother until the boy reaches the age of 7, and the girl 9.

See also in Kitab-ı Fıkhiyye.

23 November 1992 

Mufti of Komotini

(Seal and signature)

The Shah Bano case is a landmark and controversial case in India’s Supreme Court which dealt with the question of the length of time a Muslim ex-husband would have to provide his ex-wife with monthly maintenance payments after a divorce, considering Muslim personal law and Indian civil law.

This document was enacted on August 1, 1913. It prescribes certain measures for the registration of marriages and divorces between Muslims in Brunei, and shows the basic format of marriage and divorce certificates. It names neither the Sultan nor the British Resident, and does not specify an author or enacting authority.

During trial court proceedings in which a Muslim couple was dividing their marital property, the husband, Mr. Irfan Aleem, attempted to perform a “triple ṭalāq” divorce—a form of final, irrevocable dissolution of marriage under Pakistani law, initiated unilaterally by the husband. The Court refused to honor this type of divorce, concluding that it violated due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment by not giving Mrs. Farah Aleem any role or voice in the divorce proceedings. The Court also concluded that allowing the ṭalāq divorce to replace court proceedings was contrary to the public policy interest of the people of Maryland, as it would allow Pakistani version of Islamic law, which grants all property to the husband as the default in divorce cases, to regulate distribution of property in the state of Maryland. The Court thus upheld the ruling of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, granting the wife’s petition for divorce, and applied the Maryland default rule that, in the absence of prior written agreement, marital property is to be divided fairly and equitably.

Volume 1

A foreign Pakistani custody decree was entitled to comity because the Pakistani custody decree was based on the best interests of the children.

Court of Special Appeals in Maryland Decision in Hosain V. Malik. 

A Maryland court ruled that Sharīʿa Court lacked jurisdiction in a custody case since the couple never resided in the jurisdiction of the Sharīʿa Court. 

This is the summary of Abouzahr v. Abouzahr 361 N.J.Super. 135.