%A NIM.: 22103040100 Shoffana Atillah
%O Prof. Dr. H. Riyanta, M.Hum.
%T PEMBAGIAN HARTA BERSAMA AKIBAT PERCERAIAN (STUDI PUTUSAN NO. 743/PDT.G/2021/PA.PBR DAN NO. 109/PDT.G/2020/PA.RGT)
%X Indonesian marriage law stipulates joint property. This joint property is property acquired during the marriage between a husband and wife. In the event of a divorce, the joint property is divided equally between the husband and wife unless there is a prenuptial agreement that regulates the separation of the joint property. However, the implementation of this rule does not always align with reality, as illustrated in several decisions. In Decision No. 743/Pdt.G/2021/PA.Pbr, the joint property is divided in three, with a value of 2/3 (two-thirds) for the wife and 1/3 (one-third) for the husband. In a similar case, Decision No. 109/Pdt.G/2020/PA.Rgt, the judges awarded equal shares to both parties. To understand the reasons for the differences between the two decisions, this study examines the legal basis and considerations of the judges and their correlation with the principle of justice in resolving the case. This research uses a juridical-empirical approach and emphasizes conceptual analysis. It is based on primary data consisting of several decisions (Decision No. 743/Pdt.G/2021/PA.Pbr and No. 109/Pdt.G/2020/PA.Rgt) and statistical data documents from the Religious Courts. Furthermore, this research is based on online interviews. Secondary data in the form of laws and regulations are also used. The collected data are then analyzed using the theory of justice. This study shows that, first, judges have different attitudes regarding the settlement of joint property distribution cases after divorce involving couples who are both working, as seen in the two decisions the author reviewed. In Decision No. 743/Pdt.G/2021/PA.Pbr, the judges considered the conditions of the parties, while in Decision No. 109/Pdt.G/2020/PA.Rgt, they tended to ignore empirical facts. Second, the judges referred to the legal basis in the form of the Marriage Law and the Compilation of Islamic Law, although there were differences in the dictum or conclusion of the decisions in the two cases. By referring to the law and differences in interpretation of the parties' contributions, this study also concluded that some judges interpreted the regulations grammatically according to what was written, as seen in this study, while others interpreted not only legal norms but also looked at sociological facts, as in Decision No. 743/Pdt.G/2021/PA.Pbr.
%K joint property; divorce; legal discovery; justice
%D 2026
%I UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA
%L digilib75911