PENERAPAN SEMA NO. 3 TAHUN 2018 DALAM MENYELESAIKAN PERKARA CERAI GUGAT BAGI POLIGAMI SIRI (STUDI PUTUSAN PENGADILAN AGAMA YOGYAKARTA NOMOR 224/Pdt.G/2021/PA.YK.)

Arkan Purnama Hasan, NIM.: 20103050040 (2024) PENERAPAN SEMA NO. 3 TAHUN 2018 DALAM MENYELESAIKAN PERKARA CERAI GUGAT BAGI POLIGAMI SIRI (STUDI PUTUSAN PENGADILAN AGAMA YOGYAKARTA NOMOR 224/Pdt.G/2021/PA.YK.). Skripsi thesis, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA.

Preview	Text (PENERAPAN SEMA NO. 3 TAHUN 2018 DALAM MENYELESAIKAN PERKARA CERAI GUGAT BAGI POLIGAMI SIRI (STUDI PUTUSAN PENGADILAN AGAMA YOGYAKARTA NOMOR 224/Pdt.G/2021/PA.YK.)) 20103050040_BAB-I_IV-atau-V_DAFTAR-PUSTAKA.pdf - Published Version Download (3MB) | Preview
	Text (PENERAPAN SEMA NO. 3 TAHUN 2018 DALAM MENYELESAIKAN PERKARA CERAI GUGAT BAGI POLIGAMI SIRI (STUDI PUTUSAN PENGADILAN AGAMA YOGYAKARTA NOMOR 224/Pdt.G/2021/PA.YK.)) 20103050040_BAB-II_sampai_SEBELUM-BAB-TERAKHIR.pdf - Published Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (2MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

In Indonesia, marriage isbat is permitted in the context of divorce settlements. However, in the case of isbat, polygamous marriages in the context of settling a divorce are not permitted. Because the application for direct polygamous marriage isbat has been closed with the existence of SEMA No. 3 of 2018 which requires the court not to accept applications for isbat polygamous marriages. SEMA Provision No. 3 of 2018 raises the question of how to resolve a divorce for a second wife who wants to release her serial polygamous bond because it cannot be resolved in court. Remembering that in Islam the wife cannot renounce her own marriage ties. In the Decision of the Yogyakarta Religious Court Number 224/Pdt.G/2021/PA.YK. The judge did not accept the divorce petition filed by the second wife of a siri polygamist who suffered as a result of her husband's actions. The case was filed after the plaintiff received a refusal from the KUA when he wanted to get married. The non-acceptance of divorce for unregistered polygamists is certainly detrimental to those seeking justice. So the application of SEMA No. 3 of 2018 which is used to resolve divorce cases for unregistered polygamists needs to be studied more deeply. This research is a prescriptive literature study research with a case approach. Data collection methods use documentation and interviews with judges who decide cases. The data obtained was then analyzed using qualitative-descriptive methods with inductive thinking methods. The theories used to analyze the data are Sidharta's legal reasoning and Gustav Radburch's legal objective value theory. The research results show. The judge's legal reasoning applies SEMA No. 3 of 2018 in resolving the case in Decision Number 224/Pdt.G/2021/PA.YK. Regarding contested divorce for unregistered polygamists, it is appropriate starting from considering the facts, existing legal regulations, the relationship between facts and regulations and conclusions regarding case resolution. Even though what is contained in SEMA No. 3 of 2018 is a regulation regarding isbat for polygamous marriages, but because divorce for unregistered polygamists requires isbat for polygamous marriages, they still have to apply SEMA No. 3 of 2018. 3 of 2018 in order to realize the philosophical basis of these regulations. Judge in resolving the case in Decision Number 224/Pdt.G/2021/PA.YK. prioritize the value of legal certainty by implementing SEMA No. 3 of 2018 states that the court cannot dissolve the plaintiff's marriage, so the plaintiff can assume that the marriage never existed or was divorced in an unregistered manner through a religious figure. As for the value of justice and expediency, the plaintiff is still entitled to justice and expediency because the second wife actually filed a lawsuit for divorce from an unregistered marriage, not an unregistered polygamy. So the value of legal objectives in resolving this case is less than perfect

Share this knowledge with your friends :

Actions (login required)

View Item