SHARIAsource

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

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

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

The defendant submitted a counterclaim against the plaintiff for:

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

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

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

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

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

Pursuant to art 30 of Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, as amended by Law No. 5 of 2004 and Law No. 3 of 2009, the court upheld the decision of the Surabaya High Religious Court, dismissing the cassation applicant’s reasons for cassation, and ordering him to pay court costs (IDR 500,000).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Supreme Court did not accept the cassation applicant’s reasons for cassation, and, pursuant to art 30 of Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, as amended by Law No. 5 of 2004 and Law No. 3 of 2009, dismissed the appeal. The cassation applicant was ordered to pay court costs (IDR 500,000).

The Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court) had stipulated as joint assets of the parties one property, half a rice field, a Toyota vehicle, and some household appliances. The lower court had ordered that the assets be split on a 50/50 basis between the parties.

The appellant appealed the decision unsuccessfully on several grounds, namely that the intervention procedures implemented throughout the process were unlawful. The Court, however, found the procedures applied were correct and in accordance with the law.

The appellant also claimed that the respondent's initial claim incorrectly identified the street on which the property was located. The Court found this irrelevant, noting that when an inspection of the site was conducted, the appellant had conceded in a court report (dated: 19 February 2010, proceeding 27, page 2) that it was the correct property, despite the street name having changed.

The Court found the appellant's final objection to be similarly unfounded. The appellant had claimed he would purchase from the respondent her share of half of the rice field with IDR 2 million, which he would be able to obtain from his mother. The appellant had, however, been unable to prove to the lower court that he indeed had access to this money. The Court concurred with the lower court that the appellant's inability to prove such access meant the rice field became a joint asset.

The Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court) had granted the respondent an irrevocable divorce and custody of the parties' two children, and ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent IDR 2 million per month in child maintenance. The lower court also stipulated as joint assets of the parties two properties (one in Aceh, one in North Sumatra), a parcel of land, three vehicles, some household appliances, a debt of IDR 33,333,344 in the name of Yulia Fitri owed to Bank BPD, as well as a debt of IDR 36,979,175 owed to Bank BPD in the name of the appellant. The appellant was also ordered to return to the respondent that part of her dowry (mahar) that he had already used in the form of 16 grams of gold.

The Court found no fault with the lower court's decision and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff had submitted an application for divorce, as well as this application for joint assets. The parties were divorced on 28 May 2015, having been married for 10 years. Rarely, however, had they displayed any signs of compatibility during those 10 years. The main asset in dispute was the parties' 72m² home in Padang, West Sumatra, which, the plaintiff submitted, the parties had acquired due to the financial assistance provided to them by the plaintiff's parents. More specifically, the plaintiff's parents had provided the parties with IDR 23 million for an initial down-payment to purchase the property, IDR 5 million to repair the foundation of the outhouse, IDR 5 million to build a fence and terrace, IDR 3.5 million to build a garage, IDR 17 million to repair damage caused by an earthquake, and IDR 14.25 million to repay arrears to prevent the home from being auctioned. In total, the plaintiff's parents had outlaid IDR 67.75 million.

After receiving counsel from the court, however, the plaintiff withdrew her application and agreed to resolve the dispute in a familial fashion.

This fatwa states that a mother may provide a child who is not her own biological child with her breast milk provided that:

1. she is healthy, both mentally and physically; and
2. she is not pregnant at the time.

Donorship of breast milk is akin to sharing a wet-nurse, meaning that the child recipient becomes an unmarriageable kin (mahram) for the donor's biological children if:

1. the child recipient is between the age of 0-2 years;
2. the identity of the donor is known;
3. the child recipient receives breast milk on at least five occasions; and
4. the breast milk is administered directly from the donor's teat (imtishash) or from a plastic teat.

The fatwa also states that the child recipient need not be Muslim either. The provision and receipt of breast milk may result in the provision of compensation to the donor, but that compensation is not to be commercial in nature, and must be for the purpose of child-rearing, rather than for the sale and purchase of breast milk.

This fatwa forbids a man from having more than four wives at once. If a man takes a subsequent wife or wives, at law, that woman or those women are not considered his wife/wives. A man that takes more than four wives must repent by:

1. reading the istighfar (seeking forgiveness from Allah);
2. expressing regret for his conduct;
3. leaving that conduct behind him; and
4. committing not to reoffend.

The man must also leave the woman/women and provide her/them with financial support, as well as financial support for any offspring resulting from their courtship/relationship. If the man refuses to comply with the above steps, the government must act to separate the man from the woman/women through the religious courts.

This fatwa states that, in Islam, a child is born in a holy state, free from sin, even if born of adultery. The fatwa acknowledges Indonesian Constitutional Court Decision No. 46 of 2010 that granted children born out of wedlock the same status as that of children born of parents in wedlock.

The fatwa states, however, that a child born of adultery does not have a relationship with its father or father's family, but does with its mother and mother's family. The child does not bear the sin of its parents, who are to be punished (hadd) by the authorised parties. The government is authorised to hand down a ta'zir punishment to compel the male adulterer to cover the child's needs and provide the child with some form of inheritance in his will (wasiat wajibah). This ta'zir punishment is designed to afford the child some protection; not to legitimise the relationship between the father and child.

The fatwa also recommends that the People's Representative Assembly (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat) and government legislate to ensure severe punishments for adultery as a deterrent, as well as to ensure that children born of adultery are afforded the necessary protections a father should provide his child. The fatwa requests that the government facilitate with ease the provision of birth certificates to children born of adultery, but not to legitimise the relationship between the father and child. The fatwa also obliges the government to educate society so as children born of adultery are not discriminated against, but are treated like any other child.

The Full Bench of three judges, Shabir Ahmad, B. Z. Kaikaus and Masud Ahmad, held that a Muslim wife is entitled to dissolution of marriage on restoration of dower if the Judge apprehends that parties will not observe the limits of God i.e., harmonious married state as envisaged by Islam will not be possible. For this, a husband’s assent is not necessary.

This case was brought by the parents of Maria Huberdina Hertogh for the following reliefs: that Hertogh's marriage to Inche Mansoor Adabi be declared void and of no effect; that Inche Mansoor Adabi be ordered to deliver Hertogh to the custody of the Consul-General for the Netherlands; that the Consul-General for the Netherlands be free to restore Hertogh to her parents; and that Inche Mansoor Adabi and Amina Binte Mohamed be prohibited from removing Hertogh from the jurisdiction of the court pending the hearing of the application. The Court ruled that it did have jurisdiction to declare the marriage void, that the marriage was invalid, and that Hertogh should be returned to the custody of her mother.

This appeal against the ruling reported in Malaya Law Journal XVII 12 was made on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to declare void the marriage between Maria Huberdina Hertogh and Inche Mansor Adabi, that Hertogh was a Muslim "in fact and in law," and that her marriage to Inche Mansor Adabi was valid. The Court ruled that the declaration of the illegality of the marriage was beyond the Court's jurisdiction, but that Hertogh was domiciled in Holland. As Inche Mansor Adabi had not proven that the marriage was valid by the laws of Holland, the Court had rightly ordered custody of Hertogh to be returned to her parents.

This case was an appeal against the order of the Chief Justice of Singapore that Che Amina Binte Mohamed should deliver Maria Huberdina Hertogh to the custody of the Consul-General for the Netherlands. The Court ruled that the non-service of the necessary parties rendered the order a nullity. This version reproduces the opinions of the presiding judges, Evans, Storr and Thorogood.

The plaintiff brought a case before the General Court of Roudehen seeking the Court’s authorization for remarriage. The Court rejected his claimed and stated that Article 16 of the Family Protection Law 1974 was unconstitutional.

On June 28, 2022, the Constitutional Court of South Africa confirmed the Supreme Court of Appeal order that the state must amend existing legislation or enact new legislation to recognize and regulate the consequences of Muslim marriages. The order declared certain provisions of the Marriage Act and the Divorce Act unconstitutional due to the persistent non-recognition of Muslim marriages, or marriages solemnized in accordance with the tenets of sharīʿa, that have resulted in the infringement of fundamental rights of parties to Muslim marriages, and Muslim women and children in particular. The Constitutional Court confirmed this order stating that “the common law definition of marriage is declared to be inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid to the extent that it excludes Muslim marriages.”

The appellant had requested an additional examination be conducted by the Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court) before the Court handed down its judgment. Content this had taken place, while dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the lower court's decision to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), the Court noted the following:

1. the child maintenance fees for the parties' two children deemed appropriate by the lower court were unclear in quantum; and
2. so too were the maskan (accommodation) and kiswah (clothing) allowances afforded by the appellant to the respondent.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the appellant, pursuant to art 41(c) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 149 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to pay to the respondent at least IDR 750,000 per child until the children reached 21 years of age, and IDR 3 million for maskan and kiswah.

The court ordered the parties to adhere to the deed of reconciliation (akte perdamaian) to which they had agreed. The terms of the deed of reconciliation stated that the parties agreed to resolve the dispute via familial deliberation (musyawarah kekeluargaan); that the parties acknowledged debts owing between them, per the musyarakah financing agreement; that the second party acknowledged the quantum and totality of its obligations pursuant to the agreement; and that the second party was prepared to repay its debts and arrears on an interest-free basis by, at the latest, 31 January 2015.

This ministerial decree stipulates that the dispensation fee (iwadh) to repudiate a marriage (talak satu khul'i) is IDR 10,000.

This Supreme Court regulation covers the procedures relating to the mediation of cases on foot before a court.

This Supreme Court regulation states that the aim of such roaming and integrated services is to increase access and affordability for those marginalised and/or disadvantaged, to have their marriages and the birth of their children ratified and/or registered. The Regulation notes that court costs will be borne by the parties, while logistical and operational costs will be borne by the relevant province or regency/municipality. Impecunious parties can receive these services at no charge, provided they submit an application, furnished with a Certificate of Impecuniosity (Surat Keterangan Tidak Mampu) issued by the authorised agency in accordance with current provisions.

This Supreme Court regulation also replaces Supreme Court Circular No. 3 of 2014.

This regulation regulates the marriage registration administrative process, including necessary documentation required to be provided to Population Services and the Civil Registry.