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.