Yogyakarta religious court rejects repayment claim over washing machine payment
This report covers a fictional proceeding argued and decided inside Legal Arena.
A bank record and receipt established the payment and purchase, but neither resolved whether the couple had agreed that the money would be repaid.
Read the original in-game verdictThe decision
The religious court in Yogyakarta rejected Rani Prameswari's claim for repayment of Rp3,000,000 from Fajar Wibowo, finding that she had not proved he agreed to return money she transferred for a washing machine.
The court ordered neither party to pay the other. The dispute turned on whether the payment was a loan, as Rani maintained, or a contribution to a shared household purchase, as Fajar said.
The court's reasons
The bank confirmation showed that Rani transferred Rp3,000,000 to Fajar on 8 January 2025 with the note “washing machine”. A receipt showed that he bought a machine for the same amount the following day.
Those records reliably established the payment and purchase, but not the terms of any agreement between the parties. The transfer note did not identify the money as either a loan or a contribution, and the receipt said nothing about repayment.
The court considered Rani's direct and consistent account that Fajar promised to repay her after his bonus, alongside his denial. Neither account had independent confirmation, and Rani bore the burden of proving the promise on which her claim depended.
The judge did not treat the lack of a message or independent witness as proof that Fajar's explanation was correct. The finding was narrower: the evidence did not sufficiently establish a repayment agreement.
The parties' submissions
Rani said she had not understood the payment as a gift or final household contribution. She acknowledged that there was no signed loan agreement and that her bank record did not prove the alleged promise; her own account was her evidence of it.
Fajar said Rani offered to cover the machine after he had paid other household bills that month. He denied promising repayment and said his later reference to “settling up” meant balancing shared expenses, not acknowledging a personal debt.
Both parties said no message or independent witness was available to establish the conversation about repayment.
The background
The washing machine was bought for the couple's household. Although the receipt supported the account that the transferred money was used for the purchase, the court said it did not establish who owned the machine or whether the payment was a household contribution.
The judgment decided only the repayment claim on the evidence presented. It did not determine ownership of the washing machine or any broader division of household property.