SHARIAsource

The applicant (30 years) had been with her fiance (27 years) for five months, and both their parents were aware of their relationship. The applicant's fiance's initial marriage proposal to the applicant, however, had been forbidden by the applicant's father (and marriage guardian) because the applicant's fiance was from the neighbouring village, which the local Javanese culture deemed incompatible.

Despite the applicant's pleas to her father to allow her to marry her fiance, the applicant's father had remained steadfast in his convictions. Seeing no legal justification in her father's refusal, the applicant sought a stipulation from the court permitting her to marry her fiance on the following grounds:

1. that the applicant was prepared and ready to become a wife, as was her fiance to become a husband, as well as already being gainfully employed;
2. that nothing under Islamic law or any current legislative instrument precluded the applicant and her fiance from marrying; and
3. that the applicant was concerned that if she and her fiance were not permitted to marry, they would contravene Islamic legal provisions (read: become physically intimate).

The court acceded to the applicant's wishes, agreeing with the applicant that none of the reasons the applicant's father proffered in forbidding the marriage accorded with any of the reasons contained in arts 8-10 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with arts 39-44 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

In 1952, 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 ricefield purchased with cash. The applicants were second cousins, however, this did not preclude them from marrying according to Islam or current laws. 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 1952, 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 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 their be a dowry. Therefore, for the purposes of art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 7(1), (2) and (3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the applicants were lawfully husband and wife.

The applicant had married her husband in 1945, in accordance with Islam, before having eight children. While they were first 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 15 September 2010, 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, pursuant to art 7(2) and (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 25 July 1962, in accordance with Islam, before having six children. The applicant and her husband were not blood relations, nor was there any reason according to Islam or current laws to prevent them from marrying. The applicant's husband passed away due to illness on 21 May 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, pursuant to art 7(1), (2) and (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 10 September 1952, in accordance with Islam, before having four children. The applicant and her husband were not blood relations, nor was there any reason according to Islam or current laws to prevent them from marrying. The applicant's husband passed away due to illness on 16 January 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, 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 8 August 1998 in accordance with Islamic shari'a. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nasab), the dowry (mahar) had been IDR 10,000, and two witnesses were present at the time of the parties' nuptials. At the time of the wedding, the first applicant was a bachelor (duda) and the second applicant a virgin (perawan). The parties also had two children. They did not, however, have a marriage book (buku nikah) because, despite having already paid the necessary administrative costs, their marriage had never been registered with the Office of Religious Affairs. The parties, therefore, requested that the court grant them a determination ratifying their marriage.

In acceding to the parties' request, the court, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 10 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and arts 7(2) and 7(3)(c) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that the parties' marriage had been conducted in accordance with Islamic norms.

The applicants submitted that they were married in 2000 in accordance with Islamic shari'a before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mahar) had been 10 grams of gold. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor and the second applicant a virgin. They had never divorced, no one had objected to their marriage, and there were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had two children. The parties had never registered their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs, as evidenced by a notice of rejection they had received, dated 11 January 2016, issued by the same office. The parties submitted that they required a court determination ratifying their marriage in order that they could then obtain passports before undertaking the umrah.

The court, pursuant to provision (a) of the elucidation to art 49 of Law No. 3 of 2006, and art 7(4) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, noted that a marriage ratification request can be submitted by the husband or wife. The court then, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, ratified the parties marriage based on the evidence produced by the applicants.

The applicants submitted that they were married on 9 September 2009 in accordance with Islamic shari'a before two witnesses. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mahar) had been 10 grams of gold. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a bachelor and the second applicant a virgin. They had never divorced, no one had objected to their marriage, and there were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had one child. The parties had never registered their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs, as evidenced by a notice of rejection they had received, dated 22 January 2016, issued by the same office. The parties submitted that they required a court determination ratifying their marriage before they could obtain a birth certificate for their child.

The court, pursuant to provision (a) of the elucidation to art 49 of Law No. 3 of 2006, and art 7(4) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, noted that a marriage ratification request can be submitted by the husband or wife. The court then, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, ratified the parties marriage based on the evidence produced by the applicants.

The applicants submitted that they were married on 20 October 1983 in accordance with Islamic shari'a before two witnesses. The second applicant's older brother had acted as her marriage guardian (wali nikah) and the dowry (mahar) had been 10 grams of gold. At the time of the parties' marriage, the first applicant was a widower and the second applicant a widow. They had never divorced, no one had objected to their marriage, and there were no other prohibitions to their marriage under Islam or current laws. The parties had no children. The parties had never registered their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs but required a court determination ratifying their marriage before they could embark on the hajj.

The court, pursuant to provision (a) of the elucidation to art 49 of Law No. 3 of 2006, and art 7(4) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, noted that a marriage ratification request can be submitted by the husband or wife. The court then, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, ratified the parties marriage based on the evidence produced by the applicants.

The parties were married on 7 March 2002 in Wasponda, Soroako, Central Sulawesi (Sulawesi Tengah), by the local imam. The second applicant's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali), two witnesses were present, and the dowry (mahar) was a one-gram gold ring. The first applicant was a widower and the second applicant a virgin, and there were no other bars to their marriage, such as being blood relatives or having shared the same wet nurse. After the parties were married, they had lived together and had one child, born on 4 February 2003. Their marriage, however, had not been registered with the local Office of Religious Affairs. In order to obtain a marriage book (buku nikah), the parties requested that their marriage be registered.

The court, pursuant to art 12(4) of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2015, ruled that the case could be adjudicated by a sole judge. Furthermore, the judge, pursuant to art 7(2) and (3)(d) and (e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was of the opinion that the applicants' request could be considered by the court. The judge, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974, stated that a marriage is lawful if conducted according to the respective religion and beliefs of the parties, which in this case was Islam. Applying art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge stated that the pillars of marriage require that there be:

1. a prospective husband;
2. a prospective wife;
3. a marriage guardian;
4. two witnesses; and
5. an oral declaration.

Finding that these criteria had been met, and that there were no other bars to their marriage, the judge, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, declared the marriage lawful (sah).

The parties were married on 25 December 1986 in Patue, Ajangale, Bone, by the local imam. The second applicant's father had acted as the marriage guardian (wali), two witnesses were present, and the dowry (mahar) was a one-gram gold ring. Both applicants were virginal, and there were no other bars to their marriage, such as being blood relatives or having shared the same wet nurse. After the parties were married, they had lived together and had four children aged 29, 25, 24 and 21. Their marriage, however, had not been registered with the local Office of Religious Affairs. In order to obtain a marriage book (buku nikah), the parties requested that their marriage be registered.

The court, pursuant to art 12(4) of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2015, ruled that the case could be adjudicated by a sole judge. Furthermore, the judge, pursuant to art 7(2) and (3)(d) and (e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was of the opinion that the applicants' request could be considered by the court. The judge, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974, stated that a marriage is lawful if conducted according the respective religion and beliefs of the parties, which in this case was Islam. Applying art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the judge set out the pillars of marriage, which require that there be:

1. a prospective husband;
2. a prospective wife;
3. a marriage guardian;
4. two witnesses; and
5. an oral declaration.

Finding that these criteria had been met, and that there were no other bars to their marriage, the judge, pursuant to art 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, declared the marriage lawful (sah).

The applicant had submitted a marriage ratification request to the court, dated 8 January 2010. The request stated that she and M. Yusuf bin Jafar (deceased, 29 December 2009) were married in accordance with Islamic shari'a on 10 June 1949, with her older brother Muhammad Yunas acting as her marriage guardian. The marriage was witnessed by two other persons, the names of whom the applicant could not recall. The applicant's dowry was IDR 40.

The applicant required a marriage ratification certificate in order to access her deceased husband's pension, life insurance, and widow's pension. The marriage had never been registered pursuant to current legal provisions. The applicant and her husband, however, had seven children, all of whom were now adults. Moreover, they had never divorced and no one had ever had any objections to their marriage.

In acceding to the applicant's request, the court cited arts 7(2) and (3)(d) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, which granted it powers to solemnise a marriage, as well as one that preceded the enactment of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The Court also cited the rule of fiqh contained in Kitab Tuhfah Jilid IV, which mandates the recognition of the marriage of a woman who is of age and sound mind ('aqil baligh).

The applicants were married in accordance with shari'a on 2 October 2004 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was a 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 marriage, which would then enable them to obtain birth certificates 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 15 May 1979 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 five 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 marriage, which would then enable them to obtain birth certificates 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 26 August 1997 by the village imam. The second applicant's father 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 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.

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 5 June 1990 by the village imam. The second applicant's father 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 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 to have identity cards issued.

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 16 August 1984 by the village imam. The second applicant's sibling had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was IDR 28,000 cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had eight 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 to have identity cards issued.

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 1 May 1963 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was IDR 28,000 cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had eight 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 to have identity cards issued.

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 5 May 1976 by the village imam. The second applicant's father had acted as her marriage guardian, and the dowry (mahar) was IDR 28,000 cash. Nothing about the applicants' pre-marriage relationship precluded them from marrying, and they had subsequently had nine 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 to have identity cards issued.

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.