SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 6 March 2012 and had two children. The applicant, however, submitted that, since approximately 2011, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. This was the result of the respondent:

1. showing no appreciation for the applicant as her husband;
2. instructing the applicant to leave their home;
3. directing profane language at the applicant;
4. not wanting to move house when asked by the applicant; and
5. going to an undisclosed location without the applicant's permission.

Problems escalated in December 2011 resulting in the applicant leaving the respondent for two years and six months. The applicant attempted to reconcile with the respondent, but to no avail.

Despite being summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend the proceeding. Regardless, 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 the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The plaintiff submitted that, in January 2011, the defendant left the plaintiff for one year and three months, without the plaintiff's permission. The plaintiff acknowledged that the parties had quarrelled regularly because the defendant did not want to work at the plaintiff's family's mechanic's garage.

The court acknowledged the defendant had failed to meet points 2 (failure to provide the plaintiff with financial support for a duration of three months) and 4 (no longer care for the plaintiff for a duration of six months) of the couple's marriage vows (shigat taklik thalak). Pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, it granted the plaintiff a divorce granted in exchange for monetary compensation (thalak satu khul'i) for a IDR 10,000 dispensation fee (iwadh).

The parties were married on 30 January 2009. The plaintiff submitted that, in 2011, the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was the result of the defendant:

1. being ambivalent towards domestic matters and needs;
2. often going out at night and rarely being at home;
3. becoming romantically involved with another woman; and
4. providing the plaintiff with insufficient financial support, forcing her to rely on financial assistance from her parents to meet her daily needs.

Problems escalated on 21 July 2013 when the plaintiff first discovered that the defendant had been having an extra-marital affair. When the plaintiff inquired about the defendant's extra-marital affair, the defendant reacted strongly and verbally divorced the plaintiff. On 30 July 2013, the parties agreed to divorce and had lived separately since.

Despite being summonsed formally, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding. Regardless, the court found that 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, was sufficient reason to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The parties were married on 2 April 2000 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted that, after 12 years of marriage, she and the defendant had begun to quarrel regularly. This was the result of:

1. the plaintiff often catching the defendant telephoning other women;
2. the defendant often directing profanities at the plaintiff; and
3. the defendant not providing the plaintiff with adequate financial support, meaning the defendant had to sell daily items to meet the parties' children's needs.

The defendant refuted the allegation that he had telephoned other women, submitting that, in actual fact, the plaintiff had been involved with another man via Facebook when the defendant went to Pekanbaru. Moreover, while he acknowledged that he had directed profanities at the plaintiff, he disputed the frequency with which he had done so as alleged by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff further alleged that problems escalated in October 2013, resulting in the plaintiff leaving the matrimonial home. The parties had remained separated since. The defendant argued that the actual reason the plaintiff left was because she had asked to return to her village to seek medical treatment.

Due to evident ongoing conflict between the parties, 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).

The parties were married on 16 August 2013. The plaintiff submitted that, as early as September 2013, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. This was the result of:

1. the defendant's parents meddling in the parties' domestic affairs, and their appearing not to like the defendant;
2. the defendant directing profanities at the plaintiff when the plaintiff would counsel him; and
3. the defendant not providing the defendant with enough financial support, even once saying to the plaintiff: 'kan lah di agiah makan tu, makan tu la nafkah ma (I've given you food, eat it).'

Problems escalated in March 2014 when the plaintiff felt their problems were irreconcilable, and while the defendant's parents continued to meddle in the parties' domestic affairs. The plaintiff left the matrimonial home and the parties had been separated since. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra), on the grounds of ongoing conflict, per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The plaintiff submitted that she and the defendant had been happily married for 22 years. Around the middle of 2012, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly. This was the result of the defendant:

1. often gambling, despite the plaintiff asking him to stop;
2. accusing the plaintiff of being unfaithful, for no apparent reason; and
3. not working, causing the plaintiff to have to sell construction parts to meet their daily needs.

Problems escalated in July 2014 when the defendant accused the plaintiff of having an extra-martial affair with another man. Despite the plaintiff assuring the defendant she had done nothing of the sort, the defendant did not believe the plaintiff and instead struck her in the face. The defendant then drove the plaintiff to her parents' home and, since then, the parties had lived separately.

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 plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (thalak satu bain shughra).

The parties were married on 27 February 2009. The plaintiff submitted that by June 2009, however, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome. This was the result of the lack of responsibility the defendant had shown his family, including not providing the plaintiff and their child with enough financial support to meet their daily needs.

Problems escalated in June 2014 as the defendant continued to provide the plaintiff with insufficient financial support. This triggered the plaintiff to instigate an argument with the defendant, resulting in the defendant leaving the matrimonial home. The parties had remained separated since.

The court found that 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, was sufficient reason to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra).

The parties were married on 10 June 1975, had eight children, and had lived together harmoniously for seven years, up until 1982, when they started to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that this was the result of the defendant:

1. often going out at night and returning in the middle of the night, or not at all;
2. rarely being at home, and more often than not spending his time out of the house; and
3. often gambling.

Problems escalated in 2002 when the defendant married another woman, repudiating his marriage with the plaintiff. Despite efforts from both the plaintiff and defendant's families to make the parties reconcile, as well as the court advising the plaintiff against divorce, 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 plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (thalak satu bain shughra).

The court ratified the appellants' Islamic marriage of 25 September 1975, and ordered them to register their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs, pursuant to art 2(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The court ratified the applicants' Islamic marriage of 17 August 1981, and ordered them to register their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs, pursuant to art 2(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage.

The parties were married on 11 February 2001 and had one child. The applicant submitted, however, that around September-October 2013, he and the respondent had begun to quarrel regularly. This was the result of:

1. the respondent's distrust of the applicant, whereas the applicant provided the respondent space and time for her own activities;
2. an increasing incompatibility and difference of opinion between the two parties;
3. the respondent requesting the applicant return her to her family, which the applicant interpreted as the respondent wanting to separate from the applicant, despite the respondent returning to the applicant after being counselled by her older sibling; and
4. the above incidents leaving the applicant feeling uncomfortable in the respondent's presence and his feelings towards the respondent somewhat dissipated.

Indeed, the applicant and respondent had not been physically intimate since 2008.

The respondent refuted many of the applicant's submissions, primarily that the applicant's own sexual dysfunction caused by a blood condition, as well as his constantly playing golf, had caused the aforementioned rift.

After judicial mediation proved unsuccessful, 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. The court also ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent maintenance costs of IDR 30 million backdated six months, as well as IDR 15 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted), and IDR 25 million for mut'ah (divorce compensation).

The court dismissed the case as the plaintiff had failed to pay all necessary court fees. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay costs.

The court ratified the appellants' Islamic marriage of 8 November 1991, and ordered them to register their marriage with the Office of Religious Affairs. Pursuant to art 14 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court found no reason to preclude the ratification of the marriage.

The parties were married on 4 February 1994 and had one child born on 20 October 1996. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since February 1996, the parties' marriage had become fractured. This was the result of the defendant:

1. never providing the defendant with financial support;
2. often directing profanities at the plaintiff, leaving the plaintiff feeling deeply hurt;
3. physically abusing the plaintiff; and
4. threatening the plaintiff with divorce.

Problems escalated in December 2012, resulting in the parties separating. Any and all physical intimacy between the parties also ceased. The parties' families had counselled them to reconcile, but to no avail.

The defendant failed to attend court, despite having been summonsed formally. Regardless, 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 ba'in sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 3 November 2012. The applicant submitted that, since the beginning of 2013, he and the respondent had quarrelled regularly. This was the result of:

1. the respondent's stubbornness and selfishness;
2. the respondent often directing profanities at the applicant; and
3. the respondent requesting a divorce from the applicant.

Problems escalated and, on 5 February 2013, the parties separated, the respondent moving to her parents' home. After the judges counselled the parties, however, the applicant stated that he wished to reconcile with the respondent and, accordingly, withdrew his case. The court ordered the applicant to pay costs.

The parties were married on 4 March 2013 and had no children. The plaintiff submitted that, at least since 2013, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious. This was the result of:

1. a lack of compatibility and constant difference of opinion between the parties;
2. the defendant no longer providing the plaintiff with emotional and financial support; and
3. the defendant's lack of financial transparency.

The parties separated in 2013 and had not been physically intimate for approximately six months leading up to the proceeding. The plaintiff maintained that she had attempted to reconcile her differences with the defendant by talking to him, but to no avail.

Despite being summonsed formally, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding. The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and arts 33 and 34 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughro) on the grounds of ongoing conflict, as well as on the grounds of the defendant's repudiation of arts 2 and 4 of the parties' marriage vows (sighat ta'lik thalak), pursuant to art 119 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

The parties were married on 25 May 2001. The applicant submitted that the parties' marriage had become disharmonious in 2003 because:

1. the parties had not conceived a child for the first ten years of their marriage, and the respondent had stated she did not want to have the applicant's children, nor continue being his wife;
2. the respondent felt that the applicant never provided enough financially;
3. the respondent often rebutted the applicant's advice and directed profane language at him; and
4. the respondent always accused the applicant of spending the applicant's parents' money.

Problems escalated in April 2003 with the respondent, unbeknownst to the applicant, leaving the matrimonial home as a result. The efforts of both parties' families to reconcile the parties were unsuccessful, and the respondent failed to attend formal mediation proceedings. 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 applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu roj'ie) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 19 May 2012. They had no children. The applicant submitted that, since the beginning of June 2012, he and the respondent had quarrelled regularly. This was the result of:

1. the parties' frequent difference of opinion;
2. the appellant reverting to Christianity (Protestantism) from Islam; and
3. the respondent's temperamental and emotional nature, which would often result in the respondent becoming vulgar and using profane language, which left the appellant feeling that to continue domestic life with the respondent would be untenable.

Consequently, the parties had separated for approximately six months leading up to the proceeding. The applicant had also attempted to deliberate with the respondent to reach a truce, but to no avail. Accordingly, the applicant applied to the court for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The respondent disputed the applicant's three primary submissions, maintaining that it was the applicant who was temperamental, aggressive, and had threatened to divorce the respondent. More specifically, it was the applicant who had instigated the quarrelling so that he had a legal reason to divorce the respondent (ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975), because he had already reverted to Christianity, and had become involved with another woman.

In her counterclaim, the respondent sought the following monetary compensation, in accordance with the applicant's monthly salary of IDR 20 million: IDR 45 million for iddah (100-day period following divorce) and IDR 150 million for mut'ah (divorce compensation). The respondent also asserted that she had spent IDR 104,568,000 of her own money on the apartment in which the parties had lived in Central Jakarta prior to marrying the applicant, as well as IDR 69.5 million on personal effects (total: IDR 174,068,000).

While the court acceded to the applicant's claim that the parties' marriage was untenable, it could not grant the applicant himself a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) because he had already reverted to Christianity. Instead, pursuant to the 2010 revised edition of the Guidelines on the Implementation and Administration of the Religious Judiciary (Pedoman Pelaksanaan Tugas dan Administrasi Peradilan Agama), it granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra) and ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent IDR 15 million for iddah, as well as IDR 50 million for mut'ah. The court acceded to the respondent's claim that she had paid IDR 174,068,000 of her own money towards accommodation and personal effects prior to marrying the applicant, stipulating the monetary value of the parties' joint assets as IDR 53,832,000. The court ordered the applicant to transfer to the respondent IDR 26,916,000, and to auction the parties' property and divide the proceeds if necessary. The court also ordered the applicant to pay costs of IDR 416,000.

The deceased, who passed away on 10 December 2009, had seven children. (The deceased's wife had passed away on 5 August 1985.) The deceased left behind 567m² of land, 105m² of which he had already bequested to another party. The plaintiffs did not object to this gift but objected to the defendant's occupation of the remaining 462m² of land, as well as the semi-permanent home on the land. The plaintiffs sought from the court an equal distribution of the land between the parties, whereas the defendant claimed ownership of the land and property in dispute, submitting that they were gifted to her by the deceased prior to his passing.

Familial and local government efforts to resolve the dispute (the defendant was one of the deceased's children) proved to be in vain.

The court found that information provided by three of the witnesses had affirmed the claims of the defendant that the land and property had been gifted to her by the deceased before his passing. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim to inheritance and ordered them to pay costs.

The parties were married on 9 December 2004 and had two children. The applicant submitted that on 12 November 2012 the respondent had left the parties' home taking with her 30 grams of gold that belonged to the applicant's aunt. Twelve days later, the respondent's father came to the applicant's home saying that the respondent had returned to his home, but that the respondent had not confessed to taking the applicant's aunt's gold. The respondent refuted the reason she left home, stating that she had been told to leave by the applicant's cousin and that even the applicant's aunt had directed profane language at her, leaving her with no option but to leave. Since then the applicant and respondent had been separated for 22 days. The applicant conceded that the respondent's family had tried to make the parties reconcile, but to no avail.

As a counterclaim, the respondent sought custody of the children as their mother, as well as IDR 500,000 in child support from the applicant, per child, per month. The respondent also sought a further IDR 1,200,000 in back-dated maintenance fees.

In response to the respondent's counterclaim, the applicant submitted that the respondent was unfit to take care of the children, that he would not pay the requested child support if the children were in the respondent's care, and that the back-dated maintenance fees were not payable because the respondent had left him with their two children.

The court granted the applicant 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. Pursuant to art 105(a) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, however, the court granted custody of the children to the respondent as they were under the age of discernment (mumayyiz) or under the age of 12, while ordering the applicant to pay to the respondent child maintenance of IDR 300,000 per month, until the children become of age.