SHARIAsource

The court ratified the applicants' Islamic marriage of 11 July 1997, and ordered the couple to register their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs.

The court ratified the applicants' Islamic marriage of 15 September 1993, and ordered them to register their marriage with the office of Religious Affairs.

The court ratified the applicants' Islamic marriage of 9 October 2013, and ordered them to register their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs.

The court ratified the applicants' Islamic marriage of 15 December 1975, and ordered them to register their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs. Specifically, it noted that as the marriage was not hindered by anything, it could be ratified.

The court ratified the applicants' Islamic marriage of 28 August 2003, and ordered them to register their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs. Specifically, it noted that as the marriage was not hindered by anything, it could, pursuant to art 7(3)(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, be ratified.

The court ratified the applicants' Islamic marriage of 6 August 2001, and ordered them to register their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs. Specifically, it noted that as the marriage was not hindered by anything, it could, pursuant to art 7(3)(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, be ratified.

The court ratified the applicants' Islamic marriage of 22 December 2006, and ordered them to register their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs. Specifically, it noted that as the marriage was not hindered by anything, it could, pursuant to art 7(3)(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, be ratified.

The court ratified the applicants' Islamic marriage of 20 July 1990, and ordered them to register their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs. Specifically, it noted that as the marriage was not hindered by anything, it could, pursuant to art 7(3)(e) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, be ratified.

The court ratified the applicants' Islamic marriage of 25 June 1992, and ordered them, pursuant to art 2(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 5 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to register their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs.

The court ratified the applicants' Islamic marriage of 8 May 1985, and ordered them, pursuant to art 2(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 5 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to register their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs.

The court ratified the applicants' Islamic marriage of 14 September 2000, and ordered them, pursuant to art 2(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 5 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to register their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs.

The court ratified the applicants' Islamic marriage of 6 May 1977, and ordered them, pursuant to art 2(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 5 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to register their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs.

The court ratified the applicants' Islamic marriage of 1 April 1980, and ordered them, pursuant to art 2(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 5 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to register their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs.

The court ratified the applicants' Islamic marriage of 10 July 1993, and ordered them to register their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs. Specifically, it noted that as the marriage was not hindered by anything, such as being related by blood or wet-nurse, it could be ratified.

The applicant sought dispensation from the court in order that his underage son (17 years, 9 months) could marry his fiancee (19 years). The court, pursuant to art 7(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, acceded to the applicant's request, primarily because she was already two months' pregnant with their child.

The parties were married on 20 October 2007. The applicant submitted that he and the respondent had been happily married for six years and four months. From November 2013, however, the marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the respondent had had an extra-marital affair;
2. the respondent no longer executed her domestic responsibilities;
3. the applicant had divorced the respondent three times as a result; and
4. if domestic life were to continue, the respondent would not provide any serenity therein.

Problems escalated in April 2014 when the applicant discovered that the respondent was still having an extra-marital affair with the same man, an affair the applicant had already excused. The applicant had already made an effort to save the marriage, as had both parties' families, but these were in vain. Accordingly, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with 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 plaintiff submitted that, since October 2011, she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly. This was a result of the defendant:

1. only providing the plaintiff with as much financial support as he saw fit, meaning the plaintiff also had to work to meet their domestic needs; and
2. often staying out late for trivial purposes such as hunting, fishing or seeing his friends.

Problems escalated in December 2012, causing the plaintiff to move to the defendant's parents' home. Since then the parties had shared no physical intimacy, and despite the plaintiff's attempts to patiently stand by the defendant, the defendant's behaviour had not changed. The defendant also failed to attend court, despite having been summonsed formally.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba'in Sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 11 June 1997 and had lived together for 12 years and three months. The plaintiff submitted, however, that the marriage had become quarrelsome in 2007 as a result of:

1. the defendant not being transparent with his finances and failing to provide the family with sufficient financial support;
2. frequent misunderstandings in all aspects of domestic life, without any foreseeable solution;
3. the defendant's family always meddling in the parties' domestic affairs;
4. the defendant's self-centred attitude towards his children and not being interested in domestic affairs; and
5. the defendant not providing the plaintiff with any emotional support for four years.

The parties separated in February 2010, after the plaintiff could no longer cope with the defendant's behaviour. Despite being summonsed formally, the defendant failed to attend court. The court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba'in Sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 2 November 2013. The applicant submitted that he and the respondent had not had a permanent place of residence. For a month the parties had lived with the applicant's parents at times, and with the respondent's parents at other times, after which the parties then lived separately with their respective parents. In January 2014, problems escalated as the respondent had constantly asked for a divorce, claiming she no longer loved the applicant, that she did not want to start a family with the applicant, and that she could not cope with the applicant's skin condition any longer. Despite being summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend the proceeding.

The court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, in conjunction with art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 21 March 2001. The plaintiff submitted that, since January 2013, however, the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was a result of the defendant:

1. having had an extra-marital affair with an unmarried woman, of which the plaintiff became aware after reading text messages between the defendant and the other woman, as well as seeing the two spending the night at the defendant's parents' home;
2. never providing the plaintiff with financial support for more than 10 consecutive years; and
3. often leaving their home for days on end, claiming it was due to his work when it was not.

Problems escalated in April 2014, with the defendant saying he was leaving because of work, only never to return. Despite being formally summonsed, the defendant was absent from court. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro) 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.