SHARIAsource

The parties married on 18 December 2002 and had one child. Initially, their marriage was harmonious, however, the applicant claimed that the respondent's temperamental nature was the primary reason the parties had begun to quarrel regularly from 1 January 2011. The applicant maintained that the respondent would become angry over the smallest of issues, the cause of which the applicant was often unaware. The applicant also claimed that the respondent had verbally insulted his father in front of the village head.

The respondent was allegedly excessively jealous of the applicant and suspected the applicant was having an extra-marital affair. She had also made the applicant feel that whatever he provided his family (the respondent and their child) was inadequate. The parties' quarrelling caused the applicant to leave the matrimonial home, the applicant believing the marriage to be beyond repair given the lack of respect the respondent had shown him.

Despite having been summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend the proceeding. 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 applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The applicant sought dispensation to enable his 15 year old son (Nasri bin Sampara) to marry his 21 year old girlfriend (Sasmita binti Idris). The applicant's son was 15 years and four months, had completed primary school, and was unemployed. The applicant claimed that all relevant requirements to conduct an Islamic marriage had been met, other than that his son was not yet 19 years of age (the required age at law). The applicant emphasised the urgency of the matter given that his son and his girlfriend had already displayed signs that they intended to become physically intimate, something prohibited under Islam if out of wedlock. While the Office of Religious Affairs had dismissed his application to register their proposed marriage, the applicant submitted that there were no legitimate reasons that they should not be married.

The court acceded to the application, stating that the two had an inseparable bond, and that they would otherwise be unable to abstain from contravening morality and Islamic norms if they remained unmarried. Moreover, they were not being coerced into marriage, they were not siblings, nor had they ever shared a wet-nurse, and their engagement had been assented to by both their parents. The court saw no other reason to prevent the marriage, as envisaged in art of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and arts 39 and 40 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and therefore, pursuant to art 7(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974, granted dispensation to marry.

The applicant submitted that on 30 December 2012, 30 days after marrying the respondent (NB: actual date of marriage was 3 December 2012), the respondent struck the applicant and argued with him for several months. In July 2014, the respondent confessed to having had an extra-marital affair, the respondent then leaving their home without the applicant's permission. Despite trying to reunite with the respondent, even requesting the help of the respondent's family, the applicant claimed their differences were irreconcilable.

Due to the ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 39 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 applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The parties were married on 13 May 2013 and had no children. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had left her at the end of April 2013 and, since then, had shown the plaintiff no care, nor provided her with any financial support. Moreover, that as she and the defendant had been separated now for 15 months, the defendant had repudiated his wedding vows (ta'lik talak). The court acceded to the plaintiff's request and, pursuant to art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce for a fee of IDR 10,000 (talak satu khul'i).

The parties were married on 7 May 2011 and had two children. The plaintiff submitted, however, that since January 2012, the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was a result of:

1. differing values vis-a-vis domestic affairs, namely the defendant's dishonesty regarding financial affairs; and
2. the defendant often stealing other people's property, causing the plaintiff and her family to have to apologise to the relevant persons.

Problems escalated in March 2012 causing the plaintiff and defendant to separate, with the defendant having lived in rental accommodation for approximately the past two years and five months up until the time of the proceeding.

Despite being summonsed formally, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding. Due to the ongoing conflict between the parties, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra), pursuant to art 39 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 parties were married on 20 November 2011 and had one child. The applicant submitted, however, that, since January 2014, the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was a result of:

1. the respondent often going out at night for no apparent reason and without the applicant's permission; and
2. the respondent ignoring the advice and wishes of the applicant.

Problems escalated in June 2014 when the respondent no longer showed any appreciation for the applicant as the head of the household. This led to the the respondent leaving the matrimonial home with the applicant's blessing. The parties had remained separated for approximately two months leading up to the divorce proceeding. Despite being summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend the proceeding.

Due to the ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 39 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 applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The parties were married on 8 March 2008 and had one child. The applicant submitted, however, that, since January 2013, the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was the result of:

1. the respondent often rebelling against the advice and wishes of the applicant and no longer appreciating the applicant as the head of the household; and
2. the respondent always demanding more of the applicant.

Problems escalated in August 2013 causing the parties to separate. They had been living separately for approximately a year prior to this divorce proceeding.

Despite being summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend court. Due to the ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 39 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 applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The parties were married on 19 May 2013 and had no children. The applicant submitted that, since December 2013, the marriage had become quarrelsome primarily because of the parties' frequent differences of opinion. Problems escalated on 8 February 2014, resulting in the parties separating.

Due to the ongoing conflict between the parties, pursuant to art 39 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 applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i).

The parties were married on 5 March 2012 and had no children. The applicant submitted, however, that, since December 2013, the marriage had become quarrelsome because of the parties' lack of compatibility. As a result, they had lived separately for the past eight months. The applicant, in an attempt to reconcile with the respondent, had even requested the help of the respondent's parents, but this proved to be unsuccessful.

The applicant's failure to attend court on two separate occasions (26 August 2014 and 9 September 2014), even after being summonsed formally, however, meant the court dismissed his claim for a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). The applicant was also ordered to pay costs.

The parties were married on 28 December 2008 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, from September 2013, the marriage had become quarrelsome. This was the result of the defendant's violent and harsh demeanour and behaviour towards the plaintiff and their child, which had an obvious and unfortunate psychological impact on the child. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant had spoken to her in such a manner since they were married, and that the defendant's excessively selfish attitude meant he would never listen to the opinions of others, nor did he ever provide his family with sufficient financial support. At the time of the proceeding, the parties had already been separated for eight months.

Due to the ongoing conflict between the parties, the court granted the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shughra), pursuant to art 39 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 parties were married on 20 December 2012 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since February 2013, the marriage had become quarrelsome because the defendant was no longer providing the family with sufficient financial support. Consequently, the plaintiff and defendant had been separated for more than a year.

The court's efforts to counsel the plaintiff and reunite her with the defendant were unsuccessful and, accordingly, pursuant to art 39 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 bain shughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The court ratified the applicants' Islamic marriage of 25 November 2006, and ordered the applicants 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 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.