Marriage Law in Religious Court: Regulation and Decision on Marital Property in Sustainable Legal Development

IF 0.3
Ahmad Jamaludin Jambunanda, Efa Laela Fakhriah, Renny Supriyatni, Anita Afriana
{"title":"Marriage Law in Religious Court: Regulation and Decision on Marital Property in Sustainable Legal Development","authors":"Ahmad Jamaludin Jambunanda, Efa Laela Fakhriah, Renny Supriyatni, Anita Afriana","doi":"10.55908/sdgs.v11i10.1759","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The issue of divorce cases in family court has implications, resulting in the division of marital property. The object of the dispute is the house that wants to be divided equally. The case was in court decision No.205/Pdt.G/2016/PA.Ab for first instance, until the appeal process No.01/Pdt.G/2017/PTA.Ab second instance, and Supreme Court No.159K/Ag./2018 third instance and final decision at fourth instance namely review No.6PK/Ag./2019. The difference from all court decisions in the same case is due to avoid discrimination on children's rights.
 
 Methods: Qualitative research by using case approach in marriage law concerning marital property, specifically discussing some of the cases and decisions mentioned above, as well as obtaining decisions from related courts that may be reviewed and some supported from the results of religious court reports, although there are some parts of the judgment that are not published on the basis of court secrecy that maintains the privacy of the litigant community
 Results: The courts of first and second instance determine and divide the objects normatively by 50% presentation, but the courts of third and fourth instance are different and opposite, and in the final judgment, the objects of dispute are suspended and not distributed.
 
 Conclusion: The judge's judgment in the case ignored the rights of children who were still young children. If the object of dispute is divided by 50% presentation, the object must be auctioned and sold and the proceeds divided in half, but the litigant has no other place to live to protect the child and will ignore the child who does not have another house to live for the child. So, the judge does not distribute the object until the child is an adult, restoring the right to the child who was neglected after the divorce.","PeriodicalId":41277,"journal":{"name":"McGill International Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy","volume":"46 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"McGill International Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i10.1759","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The issue of divorce cases in family court has implications, resulting in the division of marital property. The object of the dispute is the house that wants to be divided equally. The case was in court decision No.205/Pdt.G/2016/PA.Ab for first instance, until the appeal process No.01/Pdt.G/2017/PTA.Ab second instance, and Supreme Court No.159K/Ag./2018 third instance and final decision at fourth instance namely review No.6PK/Ag./2019. The difference from all court decisions in the same case is due to avoid discrimination on children's rights. Methods: Qualitative research by using case approach in marriage law concerning marital property, specifically discussing some of the cases and decisions mentioned above, as well as obtaining decisions from related courts that may be reviewed and some supported from the results of religious court reports, although there are some parts of the judgment that are not published on the basis of court secrecy that maintains the privacy of the litigant community Results: The courts of first and second instance determine and divide the objects normatively by 50% presentation, but the courts of third and fourth instance are different and opposite, and in the final judgment, the objects of dispute are suspended and not distributed. Conclusion: The judge's judgment in the case ignored the rights of children who were still young children. If the object of dispute is divided by 50% presentation, the object must be auctioned and sold and the proceeds divided in half, but the litigant has no other place to live to protect the child and will ignore the child who does not have another house to live for the child. So, the judge does not distribute the object until the child is an adult, restoring the right to the child who was neglected after the divorce.
宗教法院婚姻法:法律可持续发展中的夫妻财产规制与决定
目的:家事法院离婚案件的问题具有影响,导致夫妻财产的分割。争论的对象是想均分的房子。该案由第205/Pdt.G/2016/PA号法院判决。Ab为一审,直到第01/Pdt.G/2017/PTA号上诉程序。最高法院第159k /Ag号。第6pk / ag /2019号复核,即第6pk / ag /2019号复核。在同一案件中,不同于所有法院的判决是为了避免对儿童权利的歧视。& # x0D;方法:运用案例法对涉及夫妻财产的婚姻法进行定性研究,具体讨论上述部分案例和判决,并从相关法院获得可复核的判决,以及从宗教法院报告结果中获得支持,尽管判决中有部分内容基于法院保密原则不公开,以维护诉讼群体的隐私 结果:一审法院和二审法院以50%的陈述规范地确定和划分争议标的,而三审法院和四审法院则不同而对立,在终审判决中,争议标的被搁置而不分配。 & # x0D;结论:该案件中法官的判决忽视了儿童的权利。如果争议物以50%分割呈现,则必须将该物拍卖出售,所得款项对半分割,但当事人无他处可居以保护孩子,将忽视没有他处可居的孩子。因此,直到孩子成年后,法官才会分配物品,恢复离婚后被忽视的孩子的权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信