<![CDATA[The determination of hadhanah in divorce proceedings raises a legal issue when custody is not requested by the parties, while the trial facts indicate that a custody ruling is necessary to protect the best interests of the child. This study asks how Supreme Court Circular Letter (SEMA) No. 1 of 2025 reconstructs the relationship between ultra petita and the judge’s ex officio authority, and what limits apply to that authority when custody has not been requested. It aims to formulate a model for exercising ex officio authority that balances ultra petita and the best interests of the child. This normative legal research uses a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The primary materials are legislation, the Compilation of Islamic Law, and the SEMAs; the secondary materials are books, journals, and research findings. They were collected through library research and analyzed qualitatively using descriptive-analytical and prescriptive methods. The results show that SEMA No. 1 of 2025 does not abolish ultra petita, but reconstructs its relationship with ex officio authority. The SEMA is a judicial policy instrument, so the authority must be anchored in the HIR/RBg, the statutory consequences of divorce, and child protection law. The reconstruction yields a model of limited, conditional, fact-based, and accountable judicial discretion with three layers of parameters: jurisdictional (divorce proceedings), procedural (no hadhanah claim, no agreement between the parties, and relevant facts established at trial), and substantive (the determination is necessary in the best interests of the child). Legal certainty and the right to be heard are protected through foreseeable conditions, notice and hearing of the parents, the child’s voice, and reasoned decisions. Constructed scenarios illustrate the model, which is not empirically validated against decisions.]]>
