<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the disparity in judges’ legal reasoning in adjudicating petitions for marriage validation (isbat nikah) filed by couples who married before attaining the minimum age requirement without first obtaining a marriage dispensation. The study focuses on two distinct court rulings, namely Judgments Number 155/Pdt.P/2024/PA.JB and Number 41/Pdt.P/2024/PA.Lbg. This disparity stems from the varying methods of law-finding (rechtsvinding) applied by judges in addressing to the absence of a marriage dispensation petition before the marriage was solemnized. This study employs normative legal research using case and comparative approaches. The findings reveal a fundamental difference in the interpretation of the legal requirements for a valid marriage and the minimum age limit under Law Number 16 of 2019. On the one hand, the judges adopted a formal-legalistic approach by rejecting the petition to ensure legal certainty. On the other hand, the judges tended to validate the marriage to protect the private- law rights of the child and the wife. The novelty of this study lies in the finding that such disparity is not merely a technical difference in the interpretation of legal provisions but rather reflects a paradigmatic conflict between normative legalism and judicial progressivism within the religious court system. This study contributes theoretically by highlighting the tension between substantive justice and the rigidity of positive-law norms in adjudicating family law cases. These findings affirm that the standardization of judicial guidelines at the administrative level remains inadequate, thereby necessitating a reconstruction of legal thought capable of bridging state legal protection with the welfare of legal subjects who have not yet met the minimum age requirement for marriage.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
