High Religious Court of Yogyakarta has examined and judged upon certain case at appeal level in the case filed by:

ORIGINAL RESPONDENT, age 59 years, religion Islam, occupation farmer, lives in Gunungkidul District, formerly was Respondent, now is Appellant ; -

ORIGINAL APPLICANT, age 61 years, religion Islam, occupation pension, lives in in Gunungkidul District, formerly was Applicant, now is Appellee;

The High Religious Court;
Has read the decision and case documents of the pertinent  ones;
Has also read and examined all documents relating to the case appealed;

Citing all  descriptions as contained in the verdict handed down by Religious Court of Wonosari Number 0294/Pdt.G/2010/PA.Wno., Dated June 2, 2010, whose rule reads as follows:

1. To grant the petition of Applicant;

3. To punish the Applicant to pay to the Respondent as follows:

3.1. Mut'ah Rp. 1,000,000, - (one million rupiahs);
3.2. Idah living Rp.1,000,000, - (one million rupiahs);
4. To charge to the applicant to pay all legal costs, which until now is calculated to Rp. 141,000, - (one hundred and forty one thousand rupiahs);

Reading the notice of appeal made by the Registrar of  Religious Court of Wonosari stating that on Monday, June 14, 2010 the Respondent has filed an appeal against the decision of the Religious Court, which the notice of appeal has also been notified to the opponent divinely;

Considering that the appeal filed by the Respondent / Appellant for it has been filed within the period of time and the manners prescribed by law, therefore the appeal must be declared to be accepted;

Considering, that after reading and studying the case file a quo and the memorandum of appeal filed by the Respondent / Appellant, especially after having regarded the description of the legal considerations in the decision of the court of first level, the court of appeal disagrees with the considerations and decision of the court of first level and will provide its own considerations as follows;

Considering, that the court of first level was not careful in assessing the testimonies of witnesses of Applicant / Appellee where the testimonies of witnesses of Applicant / Appellee, namely WITNESS I and the witness WITNESS II were just based on the stories of the the Applicant / Appellee himself or those from other people (testimonium de auditu) while witness WITNESS III stated not to know if the Applicant/Appellee and Respondent/Appellant had a problem, thus the testimonies of witnesses of the Applicant/Appellee  has no witnesseth value at all and therefore the arguments of the petition of Applicant/Appellee can not be proved;

Considering that the recognition by the Respondent / Appellant in the answer was a clausal recognition therefore it should not be taken in a piece, because in fact the Respondent / Appellant was about to explain that the problem between her and the Applicant/Appellee did exist but it could always be solved; the Respondent / Appellant lately was indeed to often go back to her parent's home but it caused by the parent was sick and nevertheless she always came back and never stay there overnight, whereas the home of parent of the Respondent / Appellant is very close. Respondent / Appellant was about to explain that her return to his parent's home actually did not interfere the duties and obligations as the wife of Petitioner / Appellee;

Considering that according to legal principle, divorce can only occur if the household has been broken, with no need to see who is wrong. The legal principle must be interpreted that in it there is a mean implies that the guilty party does not lose the right to file a divorce, but whether it can be granted or not by the court, the court is still obliged to consider the causes of the outbreak of the household in order to maintain and uphold the principle of fairness in divorce;

Considering, that by the above considerations, the decision of the court of first level can not be defended and therefore should be annulled, and the court of appeal will pass with own by rejecting the petition of  Petitioner / Appellee ;

Considering, that because this case includes to the field of marriage, then under the provisions of article 89 paragraph 1 of Act No. 7 of 1989 as been amended, latest by Act No. 50 of 2009, about the Religious Court, so all legal costs at the appeal level are charged to the Respondent / Appellant;

Bearing in mind all statutory provisions and regulations concerned with this case;

- To declare that the appeal filed by the Respondent / Appellant is acceptable;
- To annul the decision of Religious Court of Wonosari Number 0294/Pdt.G / 2010/PA.Wno., dated June 2, 2010 AD coinciding on 19 Jumada Thani 1431 AH. which was petitioned for appeal; -

- Reject the petition of Applicant;
- Charging to the Applicant to pay the legal cost at the first level of Rp. 141,000, - (one hundred forty one thousand Rupiahs);
- Charge to the Appellant to pay the entire legal cost of the case at appeal level amounting to Rp.150,000, - (one hundred fifty thousand Rupiahs);

Thus it was decided on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 AD coinciding on 15 Sha'ban 1431 AH, in a consultative meeting of Council of judges of High Religious Court of Yogyakarta by us, Drs. H. JALAL AROMI, SH, as Chairperson of the Council, Drs. J. THANTHOWIE GHANIE, SH, MH., and Drs. H. AMIN ROSYIDI, SH respectively as the Member Judge, based on the Determination of Chairman of High Religious Court of Yogyakarta Num. 29/Pdt.G/2010/PTA.Yk., dated July 9, 2010, the decision was pronounced on the same day in a session open to public by the Judge of Chairperson of the Council attended by the Member judges, and MUH. HARUN, S.Ag., MH, Junior Registrar of Appeals as Substitute Registrar, without the presence of Appellant and Appellee.

MEMBER JUDGES,

Drs. J. THANTHOWIE GHANIE, SH, M.H.

Cost details:
- The cost of the process ..... Rp. 139,000, -
- Stamp  duty.. ... ... ... ... .... Rp. 6,000, -
- Redaction ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Rp. 5,000, -
___________________________________
- Total ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Rp. 150,000, - (one hundred fifty thousand Rupiahs).