Research Article
Prosecution of Livelihood by Judge Against Petitioner in Verstek's Decision
@INPROCEEDINGS{10.4108/eai.28-5-2022.2320540, author={Amarulloh Amarulloh and Mukhidin Mukhidin and Nuridin Nuridin}, title={Prosecution of Livelihood by Judge Against Petitioner in Verstek's Decision}, proceedings={Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Law, Social Science, Economics, and Education, MALAPY 2022, 28 May 2022, Tegal, Indonesia}, publisher={EAI}, proceedings_a={MALAPY}, year={2022}, month={8}, keywords={divorce ultra petitum judge}, doi={10.4108/eai.28-5-2022.2320540} }- Amarulloh Amarulloh
Mukhidin Mukhidin
Nuridin Nuridin
Year: 2022
Prosecution of Livelihood by Judge Against Petitioner in Verstek's Decision
MALAPY
EAI
DOI: 10.4108/eai.28-5-2022.2320540
Abstract
This study aims to examine the application of the principle of ultra petitum partium in the case of divorce divorce in the Slawi religious court and to analyze the factors that caused the applicant to object to the application of the principle of ultra petitum partium by the judge in the divorce case at the religious court of Slawi. This study uses a normative approach and qualitative data analysis. The results of this study indicate that with ex officio iddah and mut'ah expenses imposed by the judge in case Number 0651/Pdt.G/2019/PA.Slw. This case cannot be categorized as ultra petitum partium, because the use of the judge's ex officio rights in this case does not exceed the limits of the authority given to the judge to be able to make a decision that exceeds the demands and in this case the judge is in accordance with Article 149 of the Compilation of Islamic Law. The decision of the judge examining the a quo case deviated from the ultra petitum partium principle on the basis of the application of the ex officio rights of judges in the Slawi Religious Court because many judges were bound by formal and material legal aspects so that the sense of justice in the conscience of every judge was hindered by principles and reasons. ultra petitum law