@mastersthesis{digilib76995,
           month = {May},
           title = {DISPARITAS PUTUSAN HAKIM TERHADAP PENETAPAN NAFKAH ANAK PASCA PERCERAIAN DI PENGADILAN AGAMA YOGYAKARTA DAN SLEMAN},
          school = {UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA},
          author = {NIM.: 24203011036 Tiara Nurafifa Shafeena},
            year = {2026},
            note = {Dr. Siti Jahroh, S.H.I., M.Si.},
        keywords = {Nafkah Anak, Perceraian, Pertimbangan Hakim, Perlindungan Hak Anak.},
             url = {https://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/76995/},
        abstract = {In the Indonesian legal system, divorce can only be granted through a court ruling and does not absolve parents of their obligations toward their children, particularly regarding custody and child support. In religious court practice, the determination of child support following a divorce often varies in amount and judicial reasoning, even though judges are guided by the same legal norms. This is evident in the decision of the Yogyakarta Religious Court No. 390/Pdt.G/2025/PA YK and the decision of the Sleman Religious Court No. 1204/Pdt.G/2025/PA Smn. This study examines the causes of these disparities in the rulings as well as the judges? application of child rights protections in both rulings.
This study is a field study of a normative-empirical legal nature that is descriptive-analytical in scope. The approach used is an empirical-legal one, involving the analysis of legislation, court decisions, and legal practices in the field. Primary data consists of copies of decisions from the Yogyakarta and Sleman Religious Courts as well as interviews with judges, while secondary data was obtained from regulations, legal literature, scientific journals, and previous research. Data was collected through interviews and documentation, then analyzed qualitatively using an inductive approach based on Gustav Radbruch?s theory of justice and Maidin Gultom?s theory of child protection.
The research findings indicate that disparities in rulings are not caused by differences in legal norms, but rather by differences in the facts of the case, the quality of the evidence, the presence of the parties, and the judges? reasoning methods. In Decision No. 390/Pdt.G/2025/PA YK and the decision of the Sleman Religious Court No. 1204/Pdt.G/2025/PA Smn, these differences were caused by variations in factual circumstances, the quality of evidence, the presence of the parties, and the father?s financial capacity. According to Gustav Radbruch?s theory of the purposes of law, this disparity stems from judges? efforts to balance the principles of justice, legal certainty, and utility in accordance with the specific characteristics of each case. Meanwhile, from the perspective of Maidin Gultom?s theory of child protection, the protection of children?s rights in the determination of post-divorce child support has not yet been fully optimized, as the amount of support is still influenced more by the father?s financial capacity than by the child?s needs. Child protection in adversarial proceedings is considered more effective than in default judgments because judges have access to more comprehensive information, enabling them to determine child support that is more proportionate and in the child?s best interests. Thus, disparities in rulings reflect the judge?s discretion in balancing justice, legal certainty, and the public interest according to the specific circumstances of the case.}
}