SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 2 December 1994 and had four children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since 2012, she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly. This was a result of the defendant:

1. having been married to another woman for two years, unbeknownst to the plaintiff;
2. often being dishonest and behaving unjustly towards the plaintiff;
3. not providing the plaintiff and their child with sufficient financial support; and
4. having already left the plaintiff and their child for almost three months without providing them with any financial support.

Problems escalated on 8 August 2013, resulting in the plaintiff returning to her parents' home. Since then the parties had not been physically intimate. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The court, however, dismissed the plaintiff's request. Citing Chapter 4, verse 135 of the Quran (Al-Nisa’), as well as several Supreme Court Jurisprudence statements and decisions, the court found that providing it with her own address as the address for the defendant, despite the defendant having not resided at that address for several months, rendered her application null and void. The plaintiff's conduct meant that witness information intended for the defendant was sent to the plaintiff's address and never provided to the defendant, and that the summons process had, therefore, pursuant to art 27 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, been compromised.

The parties were married on 30 July 2006 and had one child. Initially, the parties' marriage was harmonious. The applicant submitted, however, that, since January 2014, it had become quarrelsome because:

1. the parties no longer agreed on domestic affairs;
2. the respondent often rebelled against the advice of the applicant;
3. the respondent often referred to the applicant's past;
4. there had been a communication breakdown between the parties;
5. the respondent had not been a good wife to the applicant; and
6. the respondent was temperamental and did not want to listen to the applicant's opinions.

These problems escalated in June 2014, causing the parties to separate. After unsuccessfully counselling the applicant to reunite with the respondent, and the respondent failing to attend the proceeding, the court, pursuant to art 39 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, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 11 April 1999 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since August 2007, she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly. This was a result of:

1. the presence of a third party known by the defendant in the matrimonial home; and
2. the defendant no longer providing the plaintiff with financial and emotional support, having not returned home since the birth of their third child in August 2007.

The plaintiff had already attempted to resolve her differences with the defendant with the help of both parties' families, but to no avail. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 11 January 1982 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since 1986, she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly. This was primarily due to:

1. a breakdown in communication;
2. the defendant not providing for the plaintiff since 2012; and
3. the defendant often directing profanities at the plaintiff.

Problems escalated in February 2014, resulting in the parties separating. As mediation had failed and the defendant had conceded the plaintiff's submissions were all true, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 25 September 2005 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, at the beginning of 2006, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff claimed the primary causes therein were:

1. the defendant's alcohol consumption and gambling addiction;
2. the defendant's violent treatment of the plaintiff and their three children;
3. the defendant's self-confessed infidelity; and
4. the defendant not having provided the plaintiff or their children with financial or emotional support since July 2014.

Both parties' families had endeavoured to make the parties reconcile their differences, but to no avail. Indeed, despite being summonsed, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to art 39 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, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict. The court did not, however, specifically accede to the plaintiff's demand that the defendant pay child maintenance.

The parties were married on 24 February 2002 and had two children. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. The applicant submitted that, in around 2013, however, the respondent had started to show a lack of respect for applicant as the head of the household. Moreover, that the respondent would often leave the house without first seeking the applicant's permission, and that the respondent would secretively receive telephone calls from other people. The disharmony between the applicant and respondent peaked on 20 March 2013 when the applicant caught the respondent secretively on the telephone. When the applicant inquired as to with whom she was talking, the respondent immediately became angry and commenced hitting the applicant. Following this incident, the applicant returned to his parents' home. The applicant and respondent had lived separately for two months without any communication and attempts to reconcile had been in vain.

Despite the respondent's absence from court, the court acceded to the applicant's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 20 December 1992. They had three children, all of whom were now in the care of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that, in around 2006, the parties' marriage had become disharmonious. This was primarily a result of the defendant's infidelity, notably, in 2008, when the defendant stated he wanted to divorce the plaintiff and marry another woman. In September 2013, the defendant confessed to having had an extra-marital affair, resulting in the applicant and respondent separating for one month. At the time of the proceeding, however, the plaintiff stated that she and the defendant had reconciled their differences and that she wished to withdraw her application. The court accepted the plaintiff's request.

The parties were married on 28 June 2006 by the local imam, the plaintiff's father acting as the parties' marriage guardian (wali nikah). The parties had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since July 2006, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had become excessively jealous of her relationship with her family, was often angry with the plaintiff for no apparent reason, and no longer carried out his responsibilities as a husband. Consequently, the parties had been separated for approximately seven years. The plaintiff maintained that her differences with the defendant were irreconcilable and, accordingly, a divorce was the only viable solution.

In the defendant's absence, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra). Acknowledging that marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, that being a happy family and domestic life, was no longer feasible, it granted the divorce on the grounds that the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years, and ongoing conflict, 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 parties were married on 4 September 2000 and had three children. They had lived together with one of the defendant's uncles in Samarinda for approximately three years, before moving to live with another of the defendant's uncles in West Java for four years. From there they loved to Simoro village, where they had lived up until the time of the proceeding. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious, however, by February 2006, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant:

1. had debts of which the plaintiff was unaware;
2. would drink excessively and sometimes even slap the plaintiff;
3. had been having an extra-marital affair since the birth of the parties' third child; and
4. had failed to provide for the plaintiff since the birth of the parties' third child.

When problems escalated the defendant left the matrimonial home. 

The court found that a sufficient reason to grant an irrevocable divorce, as required by art 119(2)(c) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, that being ongoing conflict, existed. Therefore, it acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 6 February 2012, after which time they had lived together with the plaintiff's parents. The parties had no children. The plaintiff submitted that by February 2013 the marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. would not provide for the plaintiff due to his own jealousy;
2. could not be physically intimate with the plaintiff due to his own sexual impotence; and
3. had failed to provide for the plaintiff for one year and nine months.

When problems escalated in February 2013 the defendant left the matrimonial home.

The court found that a sufficient reason to grant an irrevocable divorce, as required by art 119(2)(c) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, that being ongoing conflict, existed. Therefore, it acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 4 March 2001 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that while the marriage had been harmonious initially, by December 2003 it had become quarrelsome because:

1. the defendant had failed to provide for his family; and
2. the parties frequently had differing opinions.

Problems escalated and, by July 2014, the parties were sleeping separate beds. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

On the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 22 July 2007 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that while the marriage had been harmonious initially, by January 2013 it had become quarrelsome because of:

1. the parties' differing opinions regarding domestic affairs; and
2. inadequate finances.

Problems escalated in October 2014 resulting in the parties separating, the plaintiff leaving the matrimonial home. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

On the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 5 December 2010 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, since January 2012, the parties marriage had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide for the plaintiff financially;
2. seldom came home, for no apparent reason; and
3. prioritised his parents over the plaintiff.

Problems escalated and, by June 2014, the parties had separated. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 2 December 2013 but had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, since March 2014, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide for his family; and
2. often came home in the middle of the night for no apparent reason.

Problems escalated and, by April 2014, the parties had separated. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the Court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 8 June 2010 and had one child. The applicant submitted that, by March 2012, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent:

1. would ignore and oppose the applicant's advice;
2. was frequently unnecessarily jealous;
3. failed to appreciate what the applicant would provide her with; and
4. frequently requested that the applicant divorce her.

Problems escalated and, by October 2014, the parties were sleeping in separate beds. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the applicant requested that the Court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raji).

Despite the respondent's absence from court, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the Court acceded to the applicant's request, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 1 September 2006 before a local marriage registrar from the Office of Religious Affairs. Since October 2012, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide the plaintiff and their children with any financial support; and
2. would frequently declare that he divorced the plaintiff (pronounced talak).

Between October 2012 and the time the plaintiff filed an application for divorce, the plaintiff and the parties' two children had been living with the plaintiff's parents. During this time the defendant never visited or provided them with any financial support, forcing the plaintiff and their children to rely financially on the plaintiff's parents. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sugro), believing the parties' marriage was beyond repair.

The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surat Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to the elucidation of art 37 of Law No. 1 of 1974, 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 acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra) on the grounds of having been apart for longer than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 18 December 1998 before an official marriage registrar from the local Office of Religious Affairs. Over a six-year period, the parties lived with the applicant's parents, and then with the respondent's grandmother. The parties also had one child.

In December 2004, the applicant went to Japan to work. Then, one day in 2006, the respondent left the parties' residence in Blitar without informing the applicant. For the next seven years and 11 months, up until the date of the proceeding, the applicant remained unaware of the respondent's whereabouts. As the parties had been apart for more than two consecutive years, the applicant requested that the the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

In the respondent's absence, the court acceded to the applicant's request, pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 26 July 2008 before a marriage registrar from the local Office of Religious Affairs. They then lived with the respondent's parents before moving to a rental property. The parties also had one child.

The applicant submitted, however, that the parties' marriage became quarrelsome from 25 November 2012, after the applicant discovered that the respondent had been having an extra-marital affair with another man. Since that date the parties had remained separated, had shared no physical intimacy, and their child had remained in the applicant's care. The applicant submitted that he did not want the child to be transferred into the care of the respondent given her recent conduct.

The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, as contained in the Qur'an, Surat Al Rum, verse 21, as well as art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving home, was no longer feasible. Therefore, pursuant to the elucidation of art 37 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court, in the respondent's absence, acceded to the plaintiff's application for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 9 October 1993 and had three children. Initially, their marriage had been harmonious, however, since July 2011, the respondent had become angry and frustrated with the applicant because the applicant had failed to provide her with sufficient financial support. As a scavenger (pemulung), the applicant would bring home, at most, IDR 50,000 per day. The respondent had returned to her parents' home in Jember and the applicant to Bali. The parties had not communicated since October 2012.

Pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years, without any communication.

The cassation applicant appealed on the grounds that the two previous courts had granted the cassation respondent a divorce because the cassation applicant was unable to conceive a child during their six years together. The cassation applicant argued this was due to no fault of her own, but rather that Allah SWT had not blessed them with a child. In addition, that the cassation respondent and cassation applicant had never quarrelled, but rather the cassation respondent had simply left the cassation applicant for no apparent reason. The cassation applicant also claimed that the cassation respondent was required by legislation (Law No. 10 of 1983) to submit a written request from his superior at work to formalise the divorce.

Purusant 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 Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the two previous courts had applied the law correctly. The court did, however, make adjustments to maintenance costs payable by the cassation respondent.