Clause Requiring Husband to Provide Material Support and Wife to Run Domestic Household Affairs Sued to the Constitutional Court
A lawyer named Moratua Silaban has filed a constitutional challenge to the Marriage Law at the Constitutional Court (MK). He challenges one of the provisions governing the duties of husbands and wives.
According to the Constitutional Court’s website, as of Tuesday, 19 May 2026, the petition is registered under number 159/PUU-XXIV/2026. The following is the content of the article being challenged:
Article 34 of Law No. 1/1974 on Marriage
The husband is obliged to protect his wife and provide all that is necessary for the household living according to his ability.
The wife is obliged to manage household affairs as well as possible.
Moratua regards the provision as creating gender discrimination. He says the husband is unconditionally expected to be the material provider, while the wife is positioned stereotypically to manage domestic household affairs.
“Both a quo norms, textual and structural, create gender discrimination. The husband is unconditionally required as a machine providing material, while the wife is positioned purely as domestic manager, thereby marginalising the essence of partnership in a marital bond,” the applicant said in his filing.
The applicant says he must face transactional marital conflicts. He says the provision triggers the breakdown of the household.
“The applicant’s losses are not merely theoretical but actual losses that are specific and actual. The applicant, who is lawfully bound in marriage and has endeavoured to protect property justice through a Prenuptial Agreement (prenuptial agreement) in practice must face transactional conflicts due to the rigidity of the a quo norm which ends up in the destruction of the applicant’s domestic institution as evidenced in the divorce proceedings,” he said.
He says he has borne an enormous and disproportionate financial burden. He claims his wife has exploited this to the extent of filing a breach of contract lawsuit.
“Moreover, the applicant’s constitutional right to protection of his property was violated in practice when the wife unilaterally took valuable items belonging to the Applicant, as evidenced by a police report,” he said.
On that basis, the applicant asks MK to:
- Find that Article 34(1) and (2) of Law No. 1/1974 on Marriage is in conflict with the 1945 Constitution and lacks binding force, subject to interpretation that: ‘Husband and wife have mutual obligations in reciprocity to protect and respect each other, to provide each other with all living necessities for the household, and to manage household affairs proportionally in order to realise a marriage that is an equal partnership based on sincere love’.