<![CDATA[Purpose – This study aims to analyse judicial disparities in determining post-divorce maintenance and ḥaḍānah (child custody) from the perspective of maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah by comparing Decision of the Yogyakarta Religious Court No. 348/Pdt.G/2021/PA.YK and the Decision of the Jepara Religious Court No. 1492/Pdt.G/2021/PA.Jepr. Method – This study employed a normative legal research method using case, statutory, and conceptual approaches. The two decisions are comparatively analysed to identify differences in the application of legal norms, construction of facts, assessment of evidence, and judicial reasoning in determining post-divorce maintenance and ḥaḍānah, with maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah serving as an evaluative framework for assessing the justice and welfare achieved through the decisions. Findings – The study finds that judicial disparity is reflected not only in differences in the rulings concerning post-divorce maintenance and ḥaḍānah, but also in the construction of facts, interpretation of legal norms, assessment of evidence, and weighting of the interests of the parties. Judges assign different weights to parents’ economic capacity, caregiving circumstances, continuity of the child’s living arrangements, and the child’s material and psychological needs. These differences demonstrate that judicial discretion plays an important role in contextualising legal norms according to concrete circumstances while simultaneously creating potential for inconsistency when not accompanied by clear reasoning parameters. From the perspective of maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah, variations in judicial outcomes may be justified when oriented toward maṣlaḥah and the protection of lineage, life, intellect, and property. Conversely, disparities unsupported by material facts and adequate reasoning may undermine legal certainty and protect women and children’s rights. Contribution/Limitations – This study offers a maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah-based evaluative framework to distinguish legitimate judicial variation from problematic disparities in cases concerning post-divorce maintenance and ḥaḍānah. Its limitation lies in the use of only two judicial decisions as the primary cases, which limits the generalisability of the findings to Religious Court practices across Indonesia. Value/Originality – The originality of this study lies in integrating maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah, judicial reasoning, and the best interests of the child principle to analyse judicial disparity. This approach shifts the focus from differences in judicial outcomes alone to evaluating the quality and legitimacy of judicial reasoning in realising substantive justice.]]>
