<![CDATA[This study is motivated by the practice of withdrawing divorce petitions in Religious Courts when the Defendant's address or whereabouts are unknown, even after proper summons procedures under procedural law have been executed. The study aims to provide a juridical analysis of the legal consequences of such withdrawals for both the Plaintiff and the Defendant and to examine legal certainty in case handling when the Defendant is in a state of ghaib (whereabouts unknown). Employing a qualitative method within a normative legal research framework, the study utilizes statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. It analyzes primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials through literature reviews, content analysis, and legal interpretation. The results indicate that, in principle, withdrawing a petition before the Defendant submits a response is the Plaintiff's right under Article 271 of the Reglement op de Rechtsvordering (Rv) and does not require the Defendant's consent; however, once a response has been submitted, withdrawal requires the opposing party's consent. In the practice of the Sumber Religious Court, cases were found to be withdrawn after the ghaib summons process had already commenced, only to be re-registered as ghaib divorce cases, thereby imposing additional costs, time, and administrative burdens on the Plaintiff. The findings reveal a regulatory gap regarding the specific relationship between petition withdrawal and the ghaib divorce mechanism, leading to potential inconsistencies in case handling. The study underscores the need for clearer technical guidelines from the Supreme Court and the application of the principle of "in favor of continuity," ensuring that withdrawal is not treated as an automatic procedure but rather as an ultimum remedium (last resort), while upholding legal certainty and protecting the rights of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
