SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 22 October 2000 at the Office of Religious Affairs (Kantor Urusan Agama) in West Bekasi, and had one child. After marrying, they lived in a rental property in Solo for approximately six years, before moving to Banda Aceh. The plaintiff alleged that, since 2010, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly because the defendant had failed to provide sufficiently for his family. Family members had sought to reconcile the parties, but to no avail. On 30 September 2010, the defendant orally divorced the plaintiff (declared talak), and in January 2011, the defendant left the plaintiff and their child (then-aged 2) never to return. Since then the defendant had failed to provide the defendant with any financial or emotional support, and had only provided the defendant with a modest amount of money after their child had started school. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought a judicial divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The court acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to art 70(1) of Law No. 7 of 1989, in conjunction with art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, on the grounds of irreconcilable differences and ongoing conflict.

This government regulation informs the application of Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection, specifying requirements and criteria for prospective adoptive parents.

This fatwa states that there are two conflicting opinions regarding divorce (pronouncement of talak). The first is that the pronouncement of talak three times at once is akin to the third talak. This opinion was held by the Companions of the Prophet (Sahaba), the Tabi'in (the next generation), and imams of all four schools (mazhab) of Sunni Islamic thought. The counter opinion is that pronouncement of talak three times at once is only akin to the first of three pronouncements of talak. This opinion was held by Thawus, the Imamiyah school (mazhab) of Shi'a Islamic thought, Ibnu Taimiyah, and Ahlu az-Zahir. The fatwa states that the Committee finds the former opinion to be more sound. It also notes that marriage and divorce is regulated for Muslims in ss 10 and 31 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and ss 14-18 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975.

The fatwa states that efforts must be made to prevent three pronouncements of talak at once occurring again. Moreover, that if state marriage laws are implemented correctly, there will be no more incidents of three pronouncements of talak at once in Indonesia. The fatwa also acknowledges the significance of the role of the religious courts (pengadilan agama) in preventing such incidents occurring in the future.

This jurisprudence shows that decisions issued by courts (other than the Supreme Court) at the final stage of appeal, can be submitted to the Supreme Court and treated as a civil case for the purposes of cassation. Such decisions from religious courts (pengadilan agama) or Islamic high courts (Mahkamah Islam Tinggi) cannot be certified by a state court, however, because religious court and Islamic high court decisions are deemed to not yet be legally binding.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that the conveyance of a cassation application to a religious court registrar that is not accepted does not detract from the rights of those seeking justice to submit an application for cassation directly to the Supreme Court (Mahkmah Agung). Moreover, with regards to religious court determinations that dismiss a husband's request to divorce his wife, the husband may appeal the decision, as well as seek cassation of the decision.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that, since the enactment of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage and Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975 on the Implementation of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, divorce as initiated by a husband (thalak) must be conducted before the local religious court/shari'a court.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that divorce must be granted to a plaintiff who establishes, on the facts, the existence of ongoing irreconcilable conflict.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that the assessment of evidence is not a relevant consideration at the cassation level in cases of marriage repudiation.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that if ongoing and irreconcilable confict has already been established based on information provided by witnesses, then divorce can be granted.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence pertains to divorce applications. It states that parents can be elevated as witnesses, and the information they provide can be reconciled with that provided by the defendant's witnesses.

This Supreme Court jurisdiction states that divorce can be granted where a marriage is marred by irreconcilable ongoing conflict, to the extent that, with the approval of both the families of both parties, the parties are no longer co-existing under the same roof.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that half of the defendant's wage is to be provided to the plaintiff, as provided for in art 8 of Government Regulation No. 10 of 1983 on Permission to Marry and Divorce for Civil Servants, as amended by Government Regulation No. 45 of 1990. This provision is not part of religious court procedure because it is based on the decision of a state administrative officer.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that for a man to take another wife he must first obtain the permission of a religious court, per arts 3, 9, 24 and 25 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that a plaintiff's demands can be dealt with jointly, provided that the plaintiff's demands for divorce, along with the legal consequences therein, as regulated in art 86 of Law No. 7 of 1989, are not frustrated by separate demands not regulated in art 86.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that, in the event of a divorce, the consequences of the divorce, based on fairness and justice, must be stipulated in accordance with minimum daily needs. Moreover, in order to guarantee certainty and the future of the parties' children, the obligations of the husband to financially support his children need to be stipulated.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that the primary consideration with regards to child maintenance is the welfare and interests of the child. Moreover, a child under the age of seven years, whose mother travels overseas frequently, and who is happy and content with his father, should be placed in the care of his/her father.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that a wife filing for divorce from her husband should not always be declared nusyuz (disobedient). A divorce application submitted by a wife is not evidence of a wife's disobedience, therefore a husband can be ordered by the court to provide his wife with financial support for the first three months following the parties' divorce (nafkah iddah). This is to ensure that the wife can carry out iddah, for the purpose of, among other things, cleansing her womb of her husband's seed (istibra'). This is also in the interests of the husband.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence repudiates the direction of a high religious court (Pengadilan Tinggi Agama) to a religious court (Pengadilan Agama) that it initiate a proceeding in order to witness the appellant divorce the respondent. This is because the legality of such a proceeding would first depend on obtaining the permission of the appellant's superior work officer, as well as the opinions of Badan Penasehatan Pembinaan dan Pelestarian Perkawinan (the Marriage Counselling, Mentoring and Preservation Body) and the appellant's immediate family.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that a woman aged 24 years and widowed does not require the permission of her parents or guardian before she remarries.

This Supreme Court jurisprudence states that if a court is convinced that a marriage is irreparable, it is to deem both parties' hearts as being broken, as it were, and that the ongoing conflict requirement in art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975 is, therefore, deemed as having been fulfilled.