SHARIAsource

The parties were married on 14 July 1995 and had four children. Before the Padang Religious Court (lower court), the cassation respondent had filed for divorce from the cassation applicant, having alleged that the cassation applicant, since October 2011, had been an irresponsible husband, never providing the cassation respondent with any spending money. Moreover, since 2008, the cassation applicant had not provided the cassation respondent with any emotional support, leaving her in a distressed state.

The cassation applicant had incorrectly accused the cassation respondent of having had an extra-marital affair, while often becoming angry for no apparent reason, as well as denigrating her character to members of her family, causing the cassation respondent's family to often blame her if something went wrong. According to the cassation respondent's older sibling, the cassation applicant would also often threaten their children saying he would not allow them to see the cassation respondent. When the cassation applicant left the matrimonial home, he took the parties' children with him.

The lower court had granted the cassation respondent an irrevocable divorce (thalak satu bain sughra), but granted the cassation applicant custody of the parties' children. On appeal, the Padang High Religious Court had affirmed the cassation respondent's irrevocable divorce (thalak satu bain sughra), but granted her custody of the parties' four children.

The cassation applicant appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Padang High Religious Court had not given sufficient consideration to the facts of the case, but had simply based its decision on art 105 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Finding the decision of the Padang Religious High Court not to contain any incorrect applications of the law, the Supreme Court, pursuant to art 30 of Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, as amended by Law No. 5 of 2004 and Law No. 3 of 2009, dismissed the appeal.

The parties were married on 18 September 2005. The plaintiff submitted, however, that only a few months after she and the defendant had married, she received a telephone call from a woman calling herself Ciah, claiming to have secretly married (nikah siri) the defendant and being five-months pregnant with the defendant's child. From thereon, this became a point of contention between the parties, despite the defendant never validating the claims made by this other woman.

The plaintiff alleged that other causes of tension between the parties included:

1. the defendant often being angry with the plaintiff for no apparent reason;
2. the defendant never contributing financially to the parties' domestic needs, thereby making the plaintiff assume he was spending his salary on his other wife;
3. the plaintiff and defendant having been separated since the end of 2013;
4. since the beginning of 2011, the defendant having not executed his spousal responsibilities vis-a-vis the plaintiff; and
5. notably, frequent quarrelling between the parties causing the plaintiff to want to move to Bireuen for work, but not being granted permission to do so by the defendant, the dispute escalating to the point that the defendant hit the plaintiff, causing her to seek medical treatment for facial bruising.

The plaintiff also claimed that, from January 2011-present, the defendant had failed to provide her with financial and emotional support. The plaintiff quantified the financial support she believed the defendant owed her at IDR 2 million per month for 41 months (IDR 82 million). The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant had failed to provide her with a true dowry (mahar) at the time of their marriage. Rather, the defendant had borrowed five grams of pure gold from the plaintiff's parents, which he had returned after they were married, vowing to the plaintiff that he would one day give to her five grams of pure gold, or the cash equivalent thereof. The defendant, the plaintiff submitted, never upheld that promise.

The court acknowledged that the plaintiff had appropriately sought and obtained a letter of permission from her superior officer to divorce the defendant, and that the defendant's objection to that letter was irrelevant insofar as the court was unauthorised to intervene in the affairs of a government agency. The court also noted that the parties had sought to reconcile their differences via mediation, but to no avail.

The court acceded to the plaintiff's application for an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in shughra), acknowledging that the purpose of marriage, as envisaged in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and surat Al-rum verse 21, being a peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) homelife was no longer feasible. Moreover, that ongoing conflict between the parties was sufficient reason to grant a divorce, 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. The court, however, dismissed the plaintiff's claim for back-payment maintenance costs (IDR 82 million), noting that the plaintiff, like the defendant, worked as a civil servant, who would had to have first obtained the defendant's permission to work. The court noted that if one of the plaintiff's reasons for wanting to divorce the defendant was due to a lack of financial support, to then demand money from the defendant would contradict her claim.

The parties were married on 7 July 1996 in Ujung Padang. Due to work obligations, however, the parties lived in separate provinces. The applicant submitted that every time the respondent would visit him, the parties would quarrel because the respondent was too controlling. More specifically, the respondent would become displeased if the applicant had a guest visit him, would ignore the applicant's suggestions, advice or directions, and would become jealous of those close to the applicant, including the applicant's younger sibling. Furthermore, if the applicant visited the respondent, and the applicant's parents came to the respondent's home, the respondent's behaviour would often upset the applicant's mother. Problems escalated in September 1998 when the parties' second child was born and the respondent conducted the child's aqiqah (animal sacrifice) unbeknownst to the applicant.

The applicant's request was dismissed, however, as information from two witnesses produced by the respondent refuted several of the applicant's claims, and information from two witnesses produced by the applicant was, in the court's eyes, hearsay.

The parties were married on 23 December 2007 and had one child, born on 4 March 2008. They had lived with the respondent's parents for approximately three years. The applicant submitted, however, that, since September 2009, the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome because the respondent:

1. had never shown her appreciation for the applicant as the head of the household;
2. was not content with what she had, including the applicant's salary, which she found inadequate;
3. would often become jealous if the applicant returned home late; and
4. when angry, would use inappropriate language with the applicant.

As a result, the applicant had left the matrimonial home and returned to his family's home on 23 September 2009, where he had remained for the 11 months leading up to the proceeding.

The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that the parties' ongoing conflict constituted a sufficient reason to grant the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). Moreover, the court ordered the parties to abide by the terms of their post-marital agreement, which the court held to be binding at law. The agreement pertained to the matrimonial home, use of the proceeds if the home were to be sold, and child maintenance (calculated in accordance with the applicant's salary).

The parties were married on 21 February 2005 in Makassar and had two children. The plaintiff submitted that, since 2009, she and the defendant had quarrelled regularly because the defendant:

1. had been physically violent towards the plaintiff; and
2. would drink excessively and verbally abuse the plaintiff.

The plaintiff had returned to her parents' home in June 2010, where she had stayed for the three months leading up to the proceeding. After formal mediation failed to reconcile the parties, the court acknowledged that the parties' ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, constituted a sufficient reason to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in shughra).

The parties were married on 5 November 2005 and had one child. The applicant submitted that, since 2006, he and the respondent had quarrelled regularly because the respondent:

1. did not want to join the applicant at the applicant's place of residence; and
2. often became angry/emotional and would mention divorce, as well as ordering the applicant to marry someone else.

The respondent had left the matrimonial home and returned to her parents' home on 11 August 2010, where she had remained for the four months leading up to the proceeding. During this time the parties had not communicated.

The respondent admitted to often being angry and mentioning divorce. She justified this, however, on the grounds that every time the parties were physically intimate the applicant would say he felt like the respondent was raping him. Accordingly, the respondent told the applicant that if he was not happy with the respondent, he should divorce her and remarry. The respondent also objected to the applicant's claim that the respondent had left the matrimonial home in August 2010, stating that she had left the matrimonial home then to spend Lebaran (Eid al-Fitr) with her parents in Bulukumba. Moreover, that the applicant even accompanied the respondent to Bulukumba and stayed for a week before returning to Makassar. The respondent further alleged that the applicant was yet to return to Bulukumba because he had already married another woman, and that the parties remained in contact via telephone because of their children.

Given the parties' evident ongoing conflict, 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). It also ordered the applicant, pursuant to arts 149 and 160 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, to pay to the respondent IDR 300,000 per month in child maintenance, as well as IDR 1 million in mut'ah (divorce compensation) and IDR 1 million in iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted).

The parties were married on 1 September 2001. They had three children, one of whom was in the custoday of the respondent, and two of whom were in the custody of the appellant. The applicant submitted that, since August 2010, he and the respondent had quarrelled regularly because:

1. the respondent would often become angry for no apparent reason and utter profanities the applicant deemed inappropriate, as well as often demanding a divorce; and
2. the respondent did not appreciate the applicant as her husband.

Consequently, the applicant left the matrimonial home in August 2010 and had not returned for the four months leading up to the proceeding, during which time the parties did not communicate.

Despite being summonsed formally, the respondent failed to attend the proceeding. Regardless, given the parties' evident ongoing conflict, 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).

The parties were married on 7 August 2003 and had no children. In January 2004, however, the defendant left the matrimonial home for no apparent reason and without saying anything. For the next seven years the defendant never returned or provided the plaintiff with any financial support. The plaintiff emphasised in court that the defendant's conduct over the past seven years meant any hope of reconciliation was untenable.

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court, pursuant to art 39(2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, and art 116(g) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, granted the applicant an irrevocable divorce for a fee (talak satu khul'i) on the grounds that the defendant had contravened his marriage vows (janji ta'lik talak).

The parties were married on 15 May 2005 and had two children. After marrying, the parties lived in Makassar for approximately five months, before moving to Sengkang for approximately two years, after which the plaintiff returned to Makassar. The defendant had remained in Sengkang managing his business up until the time of the proceeding. The plaintiff submitted that, after approximately three years of marriage, her relationship with the defendant had deteriorated. This was a result of:

1. when quarrelling, the defendant would threaten her with divorce;
2. the defendant would often become angry and use profane language that the plaintiff deemed inappropriate;
3. the defendant was often jealous; and
4. since December 2010, the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any emotional or financial support.

Consequently, the parties had lived separately for the past three years, and rarely communicated.

Despite being summonsed formally, the defendant failed to attend the proceeding. Regardless, the court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 119(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 parties were married on 11 June 2006 and had one child. The applicant submitted that the marriage was initially harmonious. Since 2009, however, it had become quarrelsome because of the respondent's frequent and unwarranted jealously and threats to divorce the applicant. In February 2011, the applicant left the matrimonial home, taking with him his clothes and possessions. He had remained separated from the respondent for the two months leading up to the proceeding.

In her counterclaim, the respondent submitted that the applicant had never provided her with suitable financial support, and that she was always too afraid to ask him. Moreover, since February 2011, the applicant had not provided her with basic financial support, which she calculated to be IDR 2 million per month over five months (IDR 10 million). Pursuant to arts 152, 158, and 156 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws respectively, the respondent claimed she was entitled to IDR 6 million for iddah (three-month period after divorce has been granted), IDR 50 million in mut'ah (divorce compensation), as well as child maintenance payments (IDR 2 million per month) until the parties' child reached 21 years of age.

Due to the parties' ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Goverment Regulation No. 9 of 1975, as well as art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the court granted the applicant a revocable divorce (talak satu raj'i). In regards to the respondent's counterclaim, the court ordered the applicant to pay to the respondent:

1. IDR 5 million in financial support for five months;
2. IDR 3 million for iddah;
3. IDR 4 million for mut'ah; and
4. IDR 1 million per month in child maintenance until the child reaches 21 years of age.

The parties were married on 15 March 2008 and had two children. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since January 2011, it had become quarrelsome because the defendant:

1. had a gambling addiction and would return home in the middle of the night;
2. had confessed to the plaintiff that he had had extra-marital affairs with other women; and
3. rarely provided for the plaintiff and their children.

In January 2011, the plaintiff left the matrimonial home and returned to her parents' home, remaining there for the time leading up to the proceeding. During this time the parties rarely communicated, leading the plaintiff to file for divorce.

The defendant conceded that the majority of the plaintiff's submissions were true. He qualified, however, that he had had an extra-marital affair upon becoming very emotional seeing the plaintiff being picked up by another man driving an Avanza. The plaintiff acknowledged this but stated the other man was only a friend.

The court, pursuant to s 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and s 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that the parties' ongoing conflict constituted a sufficient reason to grant the plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) and, accordingly, acceded to the plaintiff's application.

The parties were married on 8 December 2010 and had three children. The plaintiff submitted that she and the defendant had lived happily together for 10 years and one month, although their marriage had been volatile at times. In June 2010, the parties had begun to quarrel often, primarily because the defendant had had an extra-marital affair, which the plaintiff had learned out about from Facebook and the defendant himself.

The plaintiff left the matrimonial home in July 2010 and had not returned in the five months leading up to the proceeding. Throughout that five months the parties had not been physically intimate, however, the defendant had provided the plaintiff with some financial support. The parties had also maintained some form of communication.

While being counselled by the court, the plaintiff expressed a desire to reconcile with the defendant and withdrew her application. The court acceded to the plaintiff's decision.

The parties were married on 29 May 1994. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since May 2008, the parties' marriage had been disharmonious, primarily because the defendant had had an extra-martial affair. The plaintiff also submitted that the defendant deliberately had another woman collect him from their home, where the plaintiff and the parties' children were, and take him to the airport for a flight to Israel. When the defendant returned from Israel on 31 May 2008, rather than returning home, the defendant went to the other woman's home. The defendant returned to the plaintiff's home on 2 June 2008. Problems escalated on 4 June 2008 when the defendant requested the plaintiff's permission to marry the other woman, since which time he had also failed to execute his duties as a husband or head of the household. The plaintiff submitted that she did not believe the defendant's temperament would have a positive influence on their children.

The defendant refuted these submissions, claiming that the cause of disharmony originated in 2004 when the defendant discovered that the plaintiff was still in contact with her ex-boyfriend. Moreover, that the woman with whom he was accused of having an extra-marital affair was merely a colleague, and that the two had never conducted themselves in an inappropriate manner. In December 2009, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff had told their children she had a new boyfriend and that she would introduce him to the children, before divorcing the defendant and taking the children to Jakarta to be with her new boyfriend. Furthermore, on 9 March 2010, the plaintiff left for Bali saying she had a business meeting there for one day. While in Bali she switched her mobile phone off and never provided the defendant or their children with any information as to her well-being or whereabouts. The defendant also claimed that on 14 March 2010, the plaintiff surreptitiously left for Bali again, where a friend of the defendant's saw her and her boyfriend in a hotel room. The plaintiff returned four days later, again having provided the defendant with no information as to her well-being or whereabouts. Since returning from Bali, the defendant claimed the plaintiff did not want her to touch him anymore, while admitting she had been involved with her boyfriend while in Bali. She had not even returned to the matrimonial home since then, leaving the defendant to take care of their children. The defendant told the court that the plaintiff had even changed her Facebook account status in March 2010 to 'not married'.

The court, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acknowledged that the parties' ongoing conflict constituted a sufficient reason to grant the applicant an irrevocable divorce (talak ba'in sughra). It declined, however, to rule on the custody of the two children.

The parties were married on 1 March 2006 and had one child. The plaintiff submitted, however, that, since April 2010, the marriage had become quarrelsome because:

1. the defendant was often physically violent towards the plaintiff, so much so that if the defendant were angry and emotional he would beat the plaintiff, leaving her with severe bruising (haematoma);
2. the defendant frequently used profane language that the plaintiff found inappropriate; and
3. the defendant never fulfilled his domestic responsibilities, having not provided for the plaintiff financially since December 2010.

The plaintiff left the matrimonial home in December 2010 and had not returned for the five months leading up to the proceeding.

Despite being formally summonsed, the defendant failed to attend mediation prior to the proceeding, as well as the proceeding itself. Due to the parties' ongoing conflict, 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 plaintiff an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain shugra).

The applicant submitted that he and the respondent had been married for 39 years and one month, 38 years and seven months of which had been harmonious. Since January 2011, however, the parties had begun to quarrel regularly because:

1. the respondent would always threaten the applicant with a kitchen knife;
2. the respondent would often become jealous of the applicant's female employee for no apparent reason, causing the employee to no longer want to work for the applicant;
3. the applicant felt distressed as a result of the respondent's attitude; and
4. the respondent would often utter profanities that the applicant deemed inappropriate from a wife.

The respondent's behaviour had caused the applicant to leave the matrimonial home in January 2011, and the parties had remained separated for the six months prior to the proceeding. The parties had, however, remained in contact.

The applicant subsequently agreed to withdraw his claim after coming to an agreement with the respondent, the conditions of which were:

1. the applicant would alter that of his behaviour which upset the respondent, such as favouring one employee over another;
2. the applicant would no longer transport on his motorcycle his female employee of which the respondent was suspicious;
3. the respondent would no longer threaten the applicant with sharp objects;
4. the respondent would no longer behave in ways that upset the applicant; and
5. both parties would abide by their statements.

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 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.

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.