<![CDATA[This study examines how judicial discretion shapes the division of joint property when administrative records do not reflect the actual acquisition of assets, a situation that often creates tension between substantive evidence and formal rules. This study employs a qualitative, document-based socio-legal case study method to analyze two rulings by the Ketapang Religious Court: Ruling No. 299/Pdt.G/2025/PA.Ktp and No. 149/Pdt.G/2025/PA.Ktp. The data were analyzed using comparative content analysis to examine the interpretation of evidence, the registration of assets in the name of third parties, and the results of on-site inspections. The research findings indicate that the resolution of disputes over joint property operates through a two-stage model: the first stage involves the construction of the distributive pool through identification, verification, legal assessment, and inclusion, and the second stage involves the allocation of the property. Although Decision No. 299 relied on the consistency of documents and witness testimony, while Decision No. 149 required an intensive on-site inspection to verify the identity and legal status of the assets, both ultimately applied Article 97 of the Compilation of Islamic Law by dividing the assets equally. Theoretically, this study demonstrates that a comprehensive evaluation of the facts by a judge can go hand in hand with formal equality, while also affirming that fact-finding activism does not necessarily result in a deviation from the rules of positive law regarding asset allocation.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
