SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 2 February 1994 and had two children. They had lived harmoniously as husband and wife for 21 years, however, in 2000, the respondent fell ill. This had compromised her ability to be physically intimate with the applicant for approximately the past four years. Concerned that he would commit adultery (zina), in December 2014, the applicant requested the respondent's permission to marry again. The respondent granted him permission. The woman the applicant proposed to marry was fit and proper in that she did not breach any shari'a or civil legislative requirements: she was not a blood relative of the applicant or respondent, nor had they shared a wet nurse; she was a divorcee and not engaged to another man; and her marriage guardian was prepared to marry them. The applicant also told the court that he believed he was capable of having more than one wife as his monthly salary was IDR 5 million, he had promised to be fair to both wives as well as his children, and the respondent had prepared a written statement in support of the applicant. The applicant also told the court that he and the respondent were prepared to separate their joint assets if the applicant were granted judicial permission to marry again.

The court counselled the applicant on the consequences and risks of polygamy, advising him not to go ahead with the second marriage. Its advice, however, went unheeded. With this in mind, the court cited verse 3 of Surat Annisa from the Qur'an, which does not prohibit polygamy but places the onus on the man to prove he will treat both wives fairly, as enunciated in art 55(2) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court was of the opinion that the applicant would treat his wives and children fairly, and, as required by art 5(1.b) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 58(1.b) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, could financially afford to care for them. After the applicant signed a statement attesting to do so, meeting the requirements of art 5(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Law No. 1 of 1974, as well as art 41(b) and (c) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975. The court acceded to the applicant's request and stipulated the items acquired by the parties as a married couple as their joint assets.

The parties were married on 28 July 2001 and had two children. At the beginning of their marriage, they had agreed to live in a home owned by the applicant in Bogor. When the respondent was seven-months pregnant with their first child, however, the parties agreed to move to the respondent's parents' home in Bekasi. Initially, when the parties would have a disagreement, the applicant thought it was fleeting and merely part and parcel of domestic life. The applicant preferred to concede defeat, rather than perpetuate further disagreement and quarrelling. Since their third year of marriage, however, the applicant submitted that the parties quarrelled regularly and were no longer compatible. The applicant submitted that this was due to:

1. a difference of opinion between the parties;
2. the respondent not being able to adopt the lifestyle of the applicant, as required in order for the applicant to earn a living;
3. the respondent not fulfilling the applicant's requests to meet his physical needs while their first child was between the age of 4-18 months;
4. the respondent not fulfilling the applicant's requests to meet his physical needs for 12 months after she was four-months pregnant with their second child;
5. after a while, the applicant himself no longer wanting to be physically intimate with the respondent because he no longer loved her;
6. the applicant having suggested to the respondent after the birth of their first child that they no longer live with the respondent's parents so that they could become more independent, and so that the applicant could feel more comfortable and free to do as he pleased without the respondent's parents present;
7. the applicant finally being able to convince the respondent that they should purchase their own home not too far from her parents' home; and
8. having their own home meant the applicant could invite family and relatives to their home whenever he chose.

The applicant conceded that as the parties' children were under the age of 12 (not yet mumayyiz), they should remain in the custody of the respondent, but that he would provide financial support for their schooling and living expenses. The applicant was also prepared to provide the respondent with IDR 6 million for iddah (100-day period after divorce has been granted) and IDR 1 million in mut'ah (divorce compensation). The applicant also specified as joint assets of the parties a house in Bekasi and a 2010 Proton Exora vehicle.

The respondent conceded many of the points of the applicant's claim, but submitted that the applicant had been duplicitous, by engaging commercial sex workers and other women for sex (zina), since 2003. The respondent also submitted that one month into her first pregnancy she had been ordered by her obstetrician to stay in bed for two weeks after she had experienced some bleeding associated with the pregnancy. This had caused her to want to avoid being physically intimate with the applicant, rather than any desire not to value her husband. At the time of giving birth to their first child, the respondent had also experienced trauma and further bleeding, which had continued to haunt her. When the respondent had begun to overcome this physical and psychological trauma, the applicant was no longer interested in being physically intimate with the respondent. Moreover, at the time, the respondent would never have guessed that the applicant was being duplicitous.

The court found that ongoing conflict between the parties satisfied the sufficient reason requirement to grant the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i), per art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.