sharia-based laws 153
money received. Consequently, having verified that the wife was not
menstruating as demanded by Islamic law, the chief judge permitted the
husband to pronounce the divorce formula. The hearing was then closed
and the litigants shook the judges’ hands and went.³⁵ After two other
cases had been heard the ex-wife approached the chief judge. She tried
to verify what had been decided on the alimony and admitted that only
now did she realise that the amount she had accepted was less than she
had originally asked for and that she would only agree to a divorce if
her financial request was met. The chief judge responded in a relaxed
fashion and said that he indeed remembered the amount requested by
her, but had considered it too much and not realistic. The judge had
taken into account the financial circumstances of the husband and had
decided to lower the amount of alimony that the wife would receive. To
stop her complaining, the chief judge said that judges could fulfill either
the whole petition or part of it and reminded her of her right to appeal
before the final hearing on the declaration of the divorce formula.
Another case involved a woman who was being divorced by herhusband and aware of her post-divorce rights. One of her demands was
dismissed, as it was, according to the judges, excessive, illogical and
unlawful, i.e.uang sakit hati(financial compensation for a broken heart).
However, the judges met her other demands on spousal alimony and a
gift of consolation and asked the husband to make the payments in the
courtroom, which he did. Given these cases, there is some evidence that,
although many husbands do not fulfill their financial obligations due to
insufficient financial means, changes in judges’ attitudes in this area have
helped to improve justice for women to some degree.
4 Sharia-Based Local Regulations: Jilbab Requirement in
Cianjur
The requirement in Cianjur for civil servants to conform to Islamic
dress codes when at work constituted a further implementation of the
local byelaw of 2006 on the intention to establish a pious society. It is an
example of the effort to control the conduct of women in public areas, and
has – like other such efforts elsewhere in Indonesia – led to widespread
debate and criticism. Both those who support the obligation to wear
a jilbab and those who oppose it base their arguments on the concept
of ‘maslahat’ (general well-being) of women, understood as women’s
security and the protection of dignity.
Based on notes of a hearing held in a court of Tangerang, 5 October 2010.