<mods:mods version="3.3" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-3.xsd" xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"><mods:titleInfo><mods:title>PEMBAGIAN HARTA BERSAMA (STUDI KOMPARASI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NO. 288 K/AG/2010 DENGAN PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NO. 266 K/AG/2010)</mods:title></mods:titleInfo><mods:name type="personal"><mods:namePart type="given">NIM.: 19103060069</mods:namePart><mods:namePart type="family">Rizki Mutiara Bahari</mods:namePart><mods:role><mods:roleTerm type="text">author</mods:roleTerm></mods:role></mods:name><mods:abstract>This study is motivated by differences in legal interpretation in the division of&#13;
marital property after divorce in Indonesia. Although it has been regulated under&#13;
Law Number 1 of 1974 and the Compilation of Islamic Law (KHI), judicial&#13;
practice shows inconsistencies, particularly in Supreme Court Decisions No. 288&#13;
K/AG/2010 and No. 266 K/AG/2010. These differences lie in how judges interpret&#13;
Article 97 of the KHI, namely whether the division must be carried out equally or&#13;
can be adjusted based on the contributions of the parties. This situation raises&#13;
issues concerning fairness in the distribution of joint assets after divorce, thus&#13;
necessitating a comparative study to understand the legal reasoning behind the&#13;
judges’ considerations in both decisions.&#13;
This research employs a normative legal research method with a comparative&#13;
juridical approach. The nature of the research is descriptive-analytical and&#13;
comparative, aiming to describe and analyze legal provisions concerning joint&#13;
property and their application in Supreme Court decisions. The data used consist&#13;
of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, which are analyzed&#13;
qualitatively through a normative juridical approach. This study focuses on&#13;
comparing Decision No. 288 K/AG/2010 and No. 266 K/AG/2010 to assess the&#13;
consistency of legal application and its conformity with principles of justice.&#13;
The results of the study indicate that there are two different approaches to the&#13;
division of joint assets. Decision No. 288 K/AG/2010 emphasizes legal certainty&#13;
through equal division (½ : ½) after deducting joint debts, while Decision No. 266&#13;
K/AG/2010 prioritizes substantive justice by considering the contributions of the&#13;
parties, resulting in an unequal division (¾ for the wife and ¼ for the husband).&#13;
This difference demonstrates that the two decisions are not contradictory, but&#13;
rather reflect the application of different concepts of justice, namely formal justice&#13;
and proportional justice, in accordance with the circumstances of each case.</mods:abstract><mods:classification authority="lcc">340.2 Hukum Perbandingan</mods:classification><mods:originInfo><mods:dateIssued encoding="iso8061">2026-08-10</mods:dateIssued></mods:originInfo><mods:originInfo><mods:publisher>UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA;FAKULTAS SYARI’AH DAN HUKUM</mods:publisher></mods:originInfo><mods:genre>Thesis</mods:genre></mods:mods>