<![CDATA[Women’s post-divorce economic rights in wife-initiated divorce are frequently unrealized even though the Supreme Court has supplied a basis for granting them. This normative juridical study employs statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, treating Probolinggo Religious Court Decision Number 123/Pdt.G/2024/PA.Prob as an instance for testing, combines the theory of the hierarchy of norms and maqashid al-shari’ah, and analyzes the legal materials qualitatively through systematic-teleological interpretation and content analysis of the court’s legal reasoning. Four findings emerge. First, a hierarchical inversion exists: the norms extinguishing these rights are articles of the Kompilasi Hukum Islam that operate automatically, whereas the norms restoring them are religious chamber formulations in Supreme Court Circular Letters that remain facultative. Second, an institutional contradiction arises, since the Supreme Court itself affirms that policy rules cannot be judicially reviewed, yet women’s substantive rights rest on precisely such an instrument. Third, a mismatch of regulatory content occurs, as substantive law is carried by a vessel designed for procedural law. Fourth, this fragility is twofold, upstream in the status of the norm and downstream in its enforcement, and manifests institutionally the marginalization of hifz al-mal. The implication is that reform requires not socialization but elevating the chamber formulations into a Supreme Court Regulation, reformulating Article 149 of the Kompilasi Hukum Islam, and activating Article 95(1) as a preventive instrument.]]>
