On marriage law<\/p>\n
From Media Indonesia<\/p>\n
I would like to respond to a report that State Minister for
\nEmpowerment of Women's Roles Khofifah Indar Parawansa, which
\napproves of a proposal made by the central governing board of the
\nIslamic Union that Government Regulation No. 10\/1983 should be
\nrevoked. It has also been reported that Minister of Religious
\nAffairs Muhammad Tolchah Hasan has welcomed this proposal.<\/p>\n
My husband, a civil servant, has divorced me for another
\nwoman, whom he has married illegally. However, even now, my
\nhusband has never been subjected to any sanctions. As a wife
\nfiling a lawsuit against her husband, I have found very unfair
\nthe decision that my husband must divorce me, which the court of
\nreligious affairs has passed on the basis of Law No. 1\/1974 on
\nMarriage, the 1991 Compilation of Islamic Laws and Government
\nRegulation No 10.<\/p>\n
I have found the following provisions unfair:
\n(a) Articles 149 and 158 of Chapter XVII of the 1992 Compilation,
\nwhich provides that if a marriage ends because a husband divorces
\nhis wife owing to the latter's adultery, the husband shall be
\nobligated to provide a means of living, mu'tah and so forth to
\nhis former wife. This provision does not apply to a wife suing
\nher husband.
\n(b) Article 41c of Chapter VIII of the 1974 Law on Marriage
\nstipulates that a husband shall be obligated to provide a means
\nof living to his former wife. However, in reality, this provision
\ncannot be applied because of the stipulation referred to in (a),
\nthat is, in the event of a wife suing her husband.
\n(c) Subarticle 4 of Article 8 of Government Regulation No. 10
\nstipulates that if it is the wife that files the lawsuit, she
\nshall not get 1\/3 of the earnings of the husband as a civil
\nservant. Although this provision has been amended in Government
\nRegulation No. 45\/1990, which stipulates that if a wife is
\nsubjected to disdain by her husband (for example by his
\nadultery), she will continue to get livelihood, the ruling of the
\ncourt continues to be based on the stipulation referred to in
\n(a).<\/p>\n
Therefore, because of incomplete and contradictory provisions,
\nI, a legally-wedded wife suing her husband for having illegally
\nmarried another woman, cannot get from my former husband the
\nlivelihood and other things that should belong to me by law.<\/p>\n
Therefore, I suggest that Government Regulation No. 10 not be
\nscrapped. Instead, it has to be adjusted to the Law on Marriage
\nand the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Then the Law on Marriage and
\nthe Compilation must also be improved.<\/p>\n
Government Regulation No. 10 must remain to ensure that a male
\ncivil servant shall not remarry without the consent of his wife.
\nBear in mind Article 2 of Chapter I of the 1974 Law on Marriage,
\nwhich stipulates the necessity to register a marriage and Article
\n14 of the same law, which prohibits cohabitation without a legal
\nnuptial bond. A violation of these provisions will be subject to
\nthe imposition of Government Regulation No. 30, namely a severe
\ndisciplinary penalty (being discharged from the civil service).<\/p>\n
It is my hope that after all adjustment and improvement have
\nbeen made, these provisions must be intensively popularized among
\nmarried women.<\/p>\n
PUSPITA<\/p>\n
Jakarta<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/on-marriage-law-1447899208", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }