<![CDATA[Child marriage remains one of the most persistent legal and social problems in Indonesia, despite the enactment of Law Number 16 of 2019 on Marriage, which raised the minimum marriage age to 19 years for both sexes, and Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) Number 5 of 2019, which requires judges to prioritize the best interest of the child when examining marriage dispensation petitions. This study examines how a judge builds legal reasoning when granting such a petition, using Decision Number 34/Pdt.P/2026/PA.SR issued by the Sragen Religious Court as the object of analysis. A normative juridical method is applied, combined with statute, case, and conceptual approaches, and the data are analyzed descriptively and qualitatively by connecting the decision with the two legal instruments above, Gustav Radbruch's theory of legal certainty, and Philipus M. Hadjon's theory of legal protection. The findings show that the judge's assessment of the urgent reason requirement rests mainly on the fact of pregnancy, which is procedurally consistent with both instruments, while the assessment of the parties' readiness stops largely at administrative and procedural fulfillment. The decision has not yet placed the administrative legal protection of the unborn child, including birth registration and paternity recognition, as an explicit basis for granting the dispensation. The study recommends that judges elaborate more thoroughly on post-marriage risk mitigation and that the Supreme Court issue clearer technical guidance on the meaning of urgent reason to reduce disparity among judges.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
