@phdthesis{digilib71901,
           month = {June},
           title = {ANALISIS PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM DALAM PERKARA PEMBATALAN PERKAWINAN YANG TELAH MELEWATI BATAS WAKTU PENGAJUAN (STUDI KASUS PUTUSAN PENGADILAN AGAMA WONOSARI NOMOR 252/Pdt.G/2024/PA.Wno)},
          school = {UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA},
          author = {NIM.: 21103050066 Ivan Bagas Varian},
            year = {2025},
            note = {Bustanul Arifien Rusydi, M.H.},
        keywords = {Pembatalan Perkawinan, Batas Waktu, Pertimbangan Hakim, Maslahah Mursalah, Sistem Hukum},
             url = {https://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/71901/},
        abstract = {Marriage annulment is a legal remedy that can be pursued when a marriage fails to meet the validity requirements stipulated by law. One of the essential provisions governing the time limit for filing annulment is Article 27 paragraph (3) of Law Number 1 of 1974, which states that the right to annul a marriage is forfeited if not exercised within six months of discovering the grounds for annulment. However, in practice, such as in the decision of the Religious Court of Wonosari Number 252/Pdt.G/2024/PA.Wno, the annulment was granted despite exceeding the specified deadline, raising legal debates regarding the judge?s considerations in reaching the verdict.
This research is a field study using a normative-empirical approach with a descriptive-analytical nature. The study applies Lawrence M. Friedman?s Legal System Theory, which consists of legal structure, substance, and culture, alongside the concept of maslahah mursalah to explore the element of public and individual welfare in judicial reasoning. Data were collected through case documentation and interviews with the presiding judge and were analyzed qualitatively to understand the legal logic behind the court?s decision.
The research findings indicate that the judge considered the deception of marital status by the defendant and unauthorized polygamy as valid grounds for annulment. Although the petition was submitted beyond the six-month period, the judge prioritized substantive justice and the protection of the aggrieved party?s rights. This reflects a progressive approach in religious court practice, where procedural formalities can be set aside in favor of greater legal and moral equity.}
}