DISPARITAS PUTUSAN PENGADILAN AGAMA TENTANG PERMOHONAN IZIN POLIGAMI (STUDI PUTUSAN PENGADILAN AGAMA WONOSARI DAN SURABAYA)NIM.: 22203011059Nurul UlfaauthorThe research entitled "Disparity of Religious Court Decisions Regarding Applications for Polygamy Permits: A Study of Wonosari and Surabaya Religious Court Decisions" is motivated by the disparity in the decisions of judges at the Wonosari and Surabaya Religious Courts regarding polygamy permits. Judges at the Wonosari Religious Court and Judges at the Surabaya Religious Court have different opinions in determining polygamy permits. As per Article 4 paragraph (2) of the Marriage Law in conjunction with Article 57 of the KHI, there is a disparity in understanding and applying the article to the applicant and the respondent. in the case at the Wonosari Religious Court in No.957/Pdt.G/2018/PA.Wno, and No.1222/Pdt.G/2018/PA/ Wno, and also at the Surabaya Religious Court with No.6357/Pdt.G/2021/PA.Sby and No.3886/Pdt.G/2021/PA.Sby there was a disparity in the judges' decisions. First thing that comes to mind is how the findings and interpretations in the Wonosari and Surabaya Religious Courts regarding permit applications with the same subject matter resulted in different decisions. And why there is such a disparity in decisions regarding polygamy permit applications in the Wonosari and Surabaya Religious Courts. This research is a library research approach. The data analysis method used is qualitative analysis using an inductive and deductive framework, and the data collection technique utilizes decisions, books, journals, and previous research. The results of the study show that the causes of the disparity in the decisions above are due to several things, namely in placing Article 4 paragraph (2) of Law Number 1 of 1974 in conjunction with Article 57 of the Compilation of Islamic Law, the judges of the Wonosari Religious Court use the article with a limitative nature and cannot be expanded, Judges at the Wonosari Religious Court; First, use a textual and restrictive interpretation approach. Second, the position of the norm is understood in a limitative manner. Third, alternative conditions become the main conditions. Fourth, consideration of social facts is not accommodated. Fifth, the orientation of the decision is legal certainty. Sixth, using the rule-based reasoning method. Seventh, the implications of the decision are consistent but less neat, while the Surabaya Religious Court is more progressive with a theological approach; First, the theological and contextual approach. Second, the position of the norm is interpreted by considering the law, third, alternative conditions can be considered together with factual conditions. Fourth, consideration of social facts is accommodated as a legal reality. Fifth, the orientation of the decision is substantive justice and expediency. Sixth, using case-based reasoning. Seventh, the implications of the decision are adaptive. Judges at the Wonosari and Surabaya Religious Courts differ in paradigm. The Wonosari Religious Court uses a formal-legalistic approach, while the Surabaya Religious Court uses a progressive-substantive approach. Furthermore, the Wonosari and Surabaya Religious Courts are motivated by different sociological backgrounds.297.577 Hukum Keluarga Islam, Bimbingan Pernikahan, Poligami, Perceraian, Iddah, Pengasuhan Anak)2026-08-03UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA;FAKULTAS SYARI’AH DAN HUKUMThesis