SHARIAsource

The respondent had worked in Taiwan from 2007-2013, returning every three years at the completion of a work contract. The parties had quarrelled over how the appellant used money the respondent would send to the appellant from Taiwan, and, since 2013, the parties had not lived together or communicated whatsoever.

The court upheld the decision of the lower court to grant the respondent an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra), finding on the facts that the parties' marriage was indeed irreparable for the purposes of art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Accordingly, it directed the appellant to pay costs.

The parties were married on 13 May 2005 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had been harmonious initially, but, since September 2010, it had become quarrelsome. This was because the defendant had failed to provide for his family.

In July 2013, the defendant left the matrimonial home never to return. parties were sleeping in separate beds, and by March 2014, the defendant had left the matrimonial home. Despite the plaintiff's efforts, she was unable to locate the defendant up until the time of the proceeding. Accordingly, 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 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 11 February 2004 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that the marriage had been harmonious initially; however, since August 2012, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide for his family;
2. was abbrasive with the plaintiff; and
3. frequently engaged in extra-marital sexual relations.

Problems escalated and, by January 2014, the parties were sleeping in separate beds, and by March 2014, the defendant had left 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).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court, 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, acceded to the plaintiff's request.

The parties were married on 9 February 2005 but had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, by October 2009, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had failed to provide for his family;
2. would physically beat the plaintiff.

Problems escalated and, by September 2013, the parties had separated after the defendant left the matrimonial home. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

On the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court, 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, acceded to the plaintiff's request.

The parties were married on 8 July 2007 but had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, by January 2008, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the defendant had failed to provide for his family;
2. the defendant's family would meddle in their domestic affairs;
3. the defendant frequently threatened the plaintiff; and
4. the defendant directed profane language at the plaintiff.

Problems escalated and, by July 2014, the parties had separated after the defendant left the matrimonial home. Familial efforts to make the parties reconcile had been in vain and the plaintiff requested that the court grant him a revocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

The defendant conceded that he had used profane language with the plaintiff, but only because she had accused him of having had an extra-marital affair. Moreover, that the parties had quarrelled because the plaintiff controlled the parties' finances, to the defendant's dismay.

On the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties, the court, 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, acceded to the plaintiff's request.

The parties were married on 3 June 1993 and had seven children. The applicant submitted that, by July 2013, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent:

1. would ignore and oppose the applicant's advice;
2. did not want to look after the parties' children;
3. failed to appreciate what the applicant would provide her with; and
4. had had an extra-marital affair.

Problems escalated and, by March 2014, the parties had separated after the respondent left the matrimonial home. The applicant had already made efforts to reconcile with the respondent but to no avail. Accordingly, 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, 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, acceded to the applicant's request.

The plaintiff submitted that, in May 2009, the parties' had become strained after she relocated to Abu Dhabi a month earlier to work. Upon returning to Indonesia in July that same year, the plaintiff went to live with her elder sibling and since then the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant had physically assaulted her. The defendant, in response, claimed that the plaintiff had never sent him money from Abu Dhabi to assist him in taking care of the parties' two children. The defendant also refuted the plaintiff's submission that the parties' marriage was strained, submitting that he wished the parties would remain married.

Despite mediation between the parties, the plaintiff maintained her request for a divorce. The court acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, that being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah, warahmah) home, as envisaged in Surat Al-Rum verse 21 from the Qur'an, art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, was no longer feasible. Accordingly, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

In 2011, after 23 years of marriage, the parties' relationship had begun to deteriorate. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had married another woman with whom he had a child (son). For two years the plaintiff and defendant had lived separately and had not been physically intimate with one another.

The defendant denied the plaintiff's submissions, stating that the plaintiff had often accused him of marrying another woman, and that her accusations were generally based on hearsay. Moreover, the defendant submitted that he had often tried to initiate physical intimacy with the plaintiff, only to be rejected.

After unsuccessfully counselling the parties to reconcile, the court noted that the defendant had acknowledged the deterioration of the relationship, but not the causes thereof. While the defendant did not want a divorce, the plaintiff's submissions, supported by witness statements that the parties had already tried to reconcile, moved the court to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff had met the evidentiary requirements contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, and acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) 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 15 February 2001 but had been living separately for the past 11 years and six months. Their marriage had begun to deteriorate in August 2002 because, according to one witness, the defendant had failed to provide his family with sufficient financial support.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra), 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, on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 6 June 1988, after which they lived with the plaintiff's parents and had three children. From December 2012, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant struggled to meet the family's financial needs. In January 2013 the parties separated and remained separated for the 11 months leading up to the divorce proceeding.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff had met the evidentiary burden contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it therefore acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 27 March 1984 and had three children. By January 2008, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. The plaintiff submitted that this was due to the defendant's inability to meet the family's financial needs, as well as the defendant having married another woman. Problems escalated in December 2011 resulting in the parties sleeping in separate beds. During this time the defendant, the plaintiff submitted, had failed to provide her with any financial or emotional support. Feeling the marriage was beyond repair, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra).

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 parties were married on 27 June 2007 and had one child. Since January 2010, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had struggled to meet the family's financial needs. The plaintiff also submitted that when the parties quarrelled the defendant would often beat her. Problems escalated in October 2010, resulting in the parties separating. For the next two years and six months, leading up to the divorce proceeding, the defendant failed to provide the plaintiff with any emotional or financial support.

Information provided by witnesses in court corroborated with that of the plaintiff, moving the court to accede to the plaintiff's request for a divorce. 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, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 20 October 2000 and had two children. By October 2010, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant had been courting another woman. Problems escalated in September 2013, resulting in the parties separating for the two months leading up to the divorce proceeding.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff had met the evidentiary burden contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it therefore acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 5 September 2007 but had no children. In August 2012, the parties' marriage became strained when the plaintiff went to Saudi Arabia to work. The plaintiff returned in July 2013, during which time the defendant had provided the plaintiff with no emotional or financial support. Problems escalated in August 2013, resulting in the plaintiff moving to live with her parents. Feeling the parties' marriage was beyond repair, the plaintiff requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff had met the evidentiary burden contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974. Pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it therefore acceded to the plaintiff's request for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties' were married on 27 March 2003 and had one child. By January 2007, however, their marriage had become quarrelsome because, the plaintiff submitted, the defendant was not able to provide his family with sufficient financial support. The marriage broke down in July 2007, resulting in the defendant leaving the plaintiff for approximately four years, during which time the defendant failed to provide the plaintiff with any emotional or financial support.

Satisfied that the plaintiff had met the evidentiary requirements contained in art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, the court, pursuant to 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 for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage was harmonious until 2008, after which time he and the respondent had begun to quarrel regularly because:

1. the respondent was never satisfied with the amount of financial support provided by the applicant, that being the applicant's entire monthly salary (IDR 1,600,000); and
2. the respondent would often direct unsubstantiated accusations at the applicant that he had had an extra-marital affair.

The applicant claimed that he had sought to reconcile and improve the parties' marriage, but, since October 2008, had felt compelled to leave the matrimonial home and return to his parents' home. Despite having been summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend the proceeding. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to art 19(b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds that the parties had been apart for more than two years.

The plaintiff submitted that the defendant left the matrimonial home [date not specified in judgment] and the parties' four children, and had not returned in nine years and one month, during which time he had not sent any news of his whereabouts and neglected his obligation to provide for his family. The plaintiff maintained that she had tried to locate the defendant, even asking his family in Jakarta, but no one she asked knew of his whereabouts.

The court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (thalak satu bain shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, and that the parties had been separated for more than two years, per art 19(f) and (b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) and (b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 1 June 2001. They had lived together in the plaintiff’s parents’ home and had one child (aged 11). The plaintiff submitted that, initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By January 2011, however, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had had an extra-marital affair and a clandestine marriage (nikah siri);
2. had not contributed financially to the marriage with the plaintiff;
3. often hit the plaintiff when the parties would argue.

Problems escalated in January 2012 culminating in the plaintiff leaving the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the circumstances had caused the marriage to deteriorate irreparably, and requested that the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bai’in shughra).

The court found that the marriage was irreparable and could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, and that the plaintiff’s claim satisfied the requirements of art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba’in Sughra) and ordered her to pay costs (IDR 506,000).

The parties were married on 10 October 1998. They lived together and had two children (aged 14 and 8). Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By November 2013, however, the defendant had left the plaintiff without providing her any further support. The parties ceased communication. The plaintiff claimed that the circumstances had caused the marriage to deteriorate irreparably, and requested the court grant her a divorce for a fee (talak satu khul’i).

The court found that the marriage was irreparable and could no longer fulfil the purposes of marriage as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and that the plaintiff’s reasons for the claim satisfied the requirements of arts 34(3) and 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court granted the plaintiff a judicial divorce (talak satu khul’i) and ordered the plaintiff to pay divorce compensation to the defendant in the amount of IDR 10,000 (uang iwadl), and to pay all court costs (IDR 346,000).

The parties were married on 5 May 2002. Since May 2006, however, the marriage had become disharmonious. The plaintiff submitted that this was because the defendant:

1. had frequently become emotional and angry and would utter obscenities, even physically assaulting the plaintiff;
2. was never transparent with the plaintiff as to his finances and salary; and
3. had stopped providing the plaintiff with emotional and financial support since May 2006.

Despite these issues, the parties had remained under the one roof.

In the defendant's absence, the court found that the parties no longer loved each other as husband and wife, as envisaged by art 77(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Moreover, ongoing conflict between the parties enabled the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in shugra).