<![CDATA[This study examines the dialectics of judicial reasoning (rechtsvinding) in disputes over the revocation of gifts (ruju’ fi al-hibah) through the lens of the abuse of rights doctrine (ta’assuf fi isti’mal al-haq). Historically, Article 212 of the Compilation of Islamic Law (KHI) is often misunderstood as a norm granting absolute authority to parents to revoke a gift, rendering it devoid of material boundaries and potentially triggering injustice. Through normative legal research employing conceptual and comparative approaches to the Surabaya Religious Court Decision No. 5001/Pdt.G/2018/PA.Sby and Supreme Court Decision No. 467/K/AG/2017, this article reveals that the judiciary has shifted towards substantive justice. Judicial disparity occurs not due to inconsistent textual adherence, but as a manifestation of the judge's acuity in detecting bad faith. The Surabaya Religious Court canceled a gift to punish manipulation and defect of will (wilsgebreke) by the child, while the Supreme Court canceled a gift to prevent the exploitation of marital property by the parent without spousal consent. As a core finding, this article deconstructs the right of revocation into a "conditional right" and provides a practical contribution in the form of three absolute material testing parameters for judges: motivation test (two-way bad faith detection), ownership and object transformation test (mawani’ al-ruju’), and harm proportionality test. The cumulative application of these parameters is expected to serve as a judicial guideline to prevent the abuse of rights and protect the justice of the family institution.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
