<![CDATA[Breach of a promise to marry has evolved from a moral issue into a civil legal matter that can be classified as an Unlawful Act (*Perbuatan Melawan Hukum* or PMH) under Article 1365 of the Indonesian Civil Code. This study aims to analyze the judges' legal reasoning in granting or dismissing lawsuits regarding such breaches and the resulting legal implications for the parties involved. The research employs a normative legal method utilizing statutory, conceptual, comparative, and case-based approaches, specifically analyzing Court Decisions No. 26/Pdt.G/2025/PN Kfm and No. 28/Pdt.G/2024/PN Kfm. The findings indicate that the divergence in rulings was determined by the fulfillment of the burden of proof. In the ruling that granted the claim, the plaintiff successfully proved all elements of an unlawful act; consequently, the judge took into account positive law, Supreme Court jurisprudence, principles of propriety and morality, and customary law. Conversely, in the ruling that declared the claim inadmissible, the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence and witnesses, leading the judge to apply the principle of *actori incumbit probatio* (the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff). A ruling in favor of the plaintiff provides legal protection, damages, and redress—including customary fines—whereas an inadmissible ruling leaves the plaintiff without legal protection or compensation. This study confirms that the success of a lawsuit for breach of a promise to marry depends primarily on the plaintiff's ability to legally substantiate all elements of an unlawful act during the trial.]]>
