SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 11 February 2012. Then, in March 2012, the plaintiff left the defendant's parents' home, where she had been living with the defendant, unable to cope with the poor way in which the defendant was treating her. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant would often leave her for several days without saying where he was going, and that the defendant only once provided her with the necessary financial support from the time they were married. Moreover, the plaintiff's attempts to keep the marriage on foot, hoping the defendant's attitude would change, had been in vain. Accordingly, 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 plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds that the parties had been apart for more than two years.

The parties were married on 22 July 2005. The plaintiff submitted that, since June 2009, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. This was a result of the defendant:

1. never working and not being able to provide the plaintiff with sufficient financial support, resulting in the plaintiff relocating to Malaysia for work to meet the parties' joint needs; and
2. already having a child with another woman, but the plaintiff not knowing the identity of this other woman, and only knowing about the child from the defendant's family and members of the public having seen him with this other woman.

In November 2009, believing their problems were irreconcilable, the plaintiff left the defendant and returned to her parents' home after no longer being able to cope with the poor way in which the defendant was treating her. The defendant also failed to attend court, despite having been summonsed formally.

The court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba'in Sughra) 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 11 July 1999. The plaintiff submitted that, after being married to the defendant for 12 years and seven months, the parties had separated after the plaintiff was instructed by the defendant to return to her parents' home. Since June 2011, the parties had quarrelled due to the defendant:

1. having had an extra-marital affair with another married woman;
2. no longer providing the plaintiff with emotional or financial support for approximately two years; and
3. being very stubborn, and often angry with, and ignoring, the plaintiff and her efforts to serve and support him.

Problems escalated in January 2013, resulting in the defendant telling the plaintiff to leave. The court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sugra) 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 parties were married on 28 November 1994. In September 2012 and after 18 years of marriage, however, the defendant left the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that, since June 2004, the marriage had been quarrelsome. This was the result of the defendant becoming angry and easily agitated by the smallest of problems, resulting in his use of profane language and threatening to divorce the plaintiff. In addition, the defendant often resorted to physical violence towards the defendant, slapping and hitting the plaintiff to the extent that the plaintiff had incurred nerve damage to her right eye for which she was still receiving medical treatment.

Since their separation in September 2012, there had been no physical intimacy between the parties, and the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support. The defendant also failed to attend court, despite having been summonsed formally. 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 plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu Ba'in Sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 13 May 2004. The plaintiff submitted that after 10 years and one month the parties separated in June 2014, and had remained so until the proceeding. The reasons for the breakdown of the parties' marriage included:

1. a difference in principles and way of thinking, including the defendant not allowing the plaintiff to work outside the home;
2. the plaintiff not being allowed to work outside the home despite the fact that the defendant's salary could not meet their daily needs; and
3. the defendant providing the plaintiff with no financial and emotional support.

Despite having been summonsed formally, the defendant had failed to attend the proceeding. Regardless, 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 plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The court declared the case null and void as the plaintiff had failed to comply with a payment request made to it by the registrar.

The applicant submitted that, since 2013, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious. In December 2013, the applicant discovered that the respondent had had an extra-marital affair with another man and, since then, had lived separately from the respondent, until July 2014. In September 2014, the respondent had given birth to a child that was not the applicant's, having concealed the pregnancy via various means. The applicant finally decided to separate from the respondent.

The failure of both the applicant and respondent to attend court meant the court had no option but to render the application's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) null and void.

The applicant submitted that, since 2014, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. This was due to the fact that the respondent was never content with the monthly sum of money with which she was provided by the applicant (IDR 3 million), and, more specifically, in mid-May 2014, the respondent had requested IDR 6 million, an amount the applicant could not afford. Despite being summonsed formally, the respondent failed to appear in court. 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, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had recently become quarrelsome. This was the result of their lack of compatibility, that from the beginning of their marriage the parties had lived separately, and that the applicant and respondent had already agreed to separate. 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, acceded to the applicant's request for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict between the parties.

The applicant submitted that the parties had begun to quarrel regularly because the respondent would often leave the matrimonial home unbeknownst to the applicant and, on 4 June 2013, the respondent had relocated to her parents' home without the applicant's permission.

The applicant told the court that his efforts to reconcile with the respondent had been in vain, and that he believed their marriage to no longer be tenable. The respondent failed to attend the proceeding, despite having been formally summonsed. In the respondent's absence, 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, granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

َMain chapters include: 1- Merchant and Commercial Transaction Defined, 2- Commercial Register Books and Commercial Registration Offices, 3- Commercial Companies, 4- Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes, Checks, 5- Bearer Instruments, 6- Brokerage, 7- Commission Agency, 8- Transportation Contract, 9- Commercial Deputy and Commercial Agents, 10- guaranty, 11- Bankruptcy, 12- Criminal Bankruptcy, 13- Reorganization, 14- Trade Name, 15- Legal Entities, 16- Other Provisions.

Articles 21-93 of this Code, regarding joint stock companies, was repealed and replaced by the Joint Stock Companies Act (1969).

The parties had three children, one of whom had passed away prior to the proceeding. Since 2013, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious after the defendant had had an extra-marital affair and married this other woman in December 2013. In addition, the defendant's unemployment meant he was unable to provide the plaintiff and their children with any financial support, and the money he did have he would spend on his new wife, rather than paying back debts he had with other people. As a result, the parties had lived separately since January 2014. 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 plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The plaintiff submitted that, in March 2014, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly. This was primarily due to the defendant not providing her with sufficient financial and emotional support, as well as the defendant having had an extra-marital affair with another woman. On 29 April 2014, the defendant divorced his wife verbally before both their parents; however, by 5 June 2014, the parties had reunited. Two weeks later, the defendant allegedly went back to the woman with whom he was having an extra-marital affair and, since then, the parties had remained separated.

Before the court, however, the plaintiff withdrew her application orally, stating that she and the defendant had reconciled their differences. The defendant concurred and the court acceded to the parties' decision.

The plaintiff submitted that, in March 2012, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel because the defendant would socialise with teenagers and return home in the middle of the night. When the plaintiff would inquire with the defendant as to why he had been out so late, the defendant would become angry and, while arguing with the plaintiff, start to damage household items, and physically assault the plaintiff, causing her to collapse.

In May 2012, the parties quarrelled because the defendant would often invite friends to spend the night. The plaintiff found this to be an invasion of her privacy. Then, in October 2014, the parties quarrelled because the plaintiff had misheard an instruction of the defendant, causing the defendant to become angry and manhandle the plaintiff in front of the defendant's parents. The quarrelling between the parties went on unabated until October 2014, when the parties separated.

While judicial mediation had been unsuccessful, the plaintiff declared during the proceeding that she had reconciled with the defendant and wished to withdraw her application for divorce. The court acceded to the plaintiff's decision.

The plaintiff submitted that, since 2008, she and the defendant had quarrelled often because:

1. the defendant was frequently duplicitous, confessing to the plaintiff about his most recent extra-marital affair; and
2. if arguing with the plaintiff, the defendant would resort to profane language, once hitting the plaintiff.

Before the court, the plaintiff submitted that she wished to withdraw her claim, acknowledging the she and the defendant had reconciled their differences. The court acceded to the plaintiff's decision.

The plaintiff submitted that, since January 2014, her marriage to the defendant had deteriorated. The parties subsequently separated in October 2014 and remained separated during the time leading up to the proceeding. The plaintiff maintained in her application for divorce that the parties' differences were irreconcilable.

As neither the plaintiff or defendant attended court, despite having been summonsed, the case was dismissed and costs were to be borne by the plaintiff.

The parties were married on 17 June 2007. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since January 2013, the marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the defendant had not provided the plaintiff and their children with sufficient financial support since January 2013;
2. the defendant gambled;
3. the defendant's sibling had discovered that the defendant had been having an extra-marital affair with another woman in mid-April 2013; and
4. the parties, in July 2013, quarrelled until the defendant made the plaintiff leave the matrimonial home.

The defendant conceded most of these points. He informed the court that he had endeavoured to reconcile with the plaintiff, but that she had not been taking his calls or returning his text messages. Regardless, the court found that there were sufficient reasons to grant the plaintiff a divorce, as required by art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The defendant's adultery and gambling satisfied art 19(a) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, while ongoing conflict between the parties satisfied art 19(f) and art 116(f). Accordingly, the Court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The parties were married on 26 June 2010. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. The applicant submitted, however, that, since around 8 February 2013, his relationship with the respondent had become strained because:

1. the respondent often left the house for no apparent reason and unbeknownst to the applicant;
2. the respondent often quarrelled with the applicant's parents;
3. the respondent was resistant to advice and if the applicant counselled her, the respondent would become angry and suicidal; and
4. the applicant wanted a child while the respondent was infertile and would regularly visit a shaman.

Accordingly, since that date, the parties had lived separately.

Due to ongoing conflict between the parties, 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 applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The parties were married on 12 January 1979. By mid-1995, however, their relationship had become strained. The applicant submitted that this was in large part due to the respondent often accusing the applicant of having an extra-marital affair, despite the applicant reassuring her that he never had, as well as the respondent showing a general lack of care and respect for the applicant. Problems escalated in October 2000 when the respondent, still accusing the applicant of being unfaithful, instructed the applicant to leave their home. The parties had remained separated since and the applicant believed their differences were irreconcilable.

The court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), on the grounds of ongoing conflict, and that the parties had been separated for more than two years, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, art 19(f) and (b) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) and (b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The applicant submitted that, since the parties' marriage on 14 June 2013, he and the respondent had never been physically intimate because the respondent refused, and that even when they slept in the same bed, the respondent would place a doll between them. In addition, the applicant claimed that the respondent did not want to execute her responsibilities as a wife, including cooking and serving food, even when the applicant would do so himself, with the help of the respondent's parents.

In August 2014, the applicant felt he could no longer cope with the respondent's attitude and decided to leave the matrimonial home. Attempts by family to reconcile the parties were to no avail, as was judicial mediation. Moreover, the respondent failed to attend court, despite having been summonsed formally. The court found that ongoing conflict between the parties, 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, was sufficient reason to grant the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).