Ruben Onsu's side explains the reason for the child's alimony, implying that there was no discussion

JAKARTA - Ruben Onsu's party finally answered another reason for the traffic jam of child support money that was brought by his ex-wife, Sarwendah. Minola Sebayang said that there was no exact figure in the court's decision, but rather a discussion system that was not run by Sarwendah.

"The divorce ruling does not regulate the exact number per month for the children, there is none. In Act 39 it is also not regulated per month, but it is mentioned that it will be delivered and discussed," explained Minola Sebayang in the Kuningan area, Thursday, July 23.

Minola revealed that so far Ruben has continued to send large amounts of money even without clear details. However, every time Ruben asks for transparency in the use of money, Sarwendah's party is said not to respond well.

"In total, look at it, Rp. 236 million in October, in November Rp. 188 million. Ruben asked what it was for, was it necessary? There was anger. If you ask for details, it's annoying, according to Ruben," he said.

The controversy peaked in December 2025 when Ruben tried to send the principal amount of Rp. 75 million. Instead of being accepted, the amount became the subject of a complaint because it was considered too small compared to previous months.

"Ruben paid Rp75 million in principal, what did S say? 'You didn't pay, where did you pay? You just transferred 75 million this month'. Even though the principal cost of Rp75 million was made by himself without discussion," said Minola.

Since January 2026, Minola said Sarwendah no longer sent invoices or details of the child's expenses. This is what makes Ruben confused about making a transfer because there is no communication.

"Because he never charged, never gave details and there was never a discussion, our client is reasonable, right, if he doesn't transfer anything? This is what is said to have been unfunded again," he said.

He also dismissed the notion that Ruben deliberately abandoned his children. According to him, Ruben only wanted to carry out the mandate of Act 39 Article 1 paragraph 4 which requires a discussion between the two parents.

"Don't make it a bill or reimburse system. Ruben still asks 'come on, let's discuss, how much is the children's school money, how much is the monthly fix'. But S still doesn't want to follow that pattern," said Minola.

Furthermore, Minola revealed that Ruben's financial burden was very large, including credit card bills used by Sarwendah's party but the bill was asked to be paid half by Ruben without details.

"Every month Ruben is asked for half of all credit card usage by S for the children. But Ruben never saw the actual bill, what it was used for, he was only billed, yes Ruben paid," concluded Minola.