Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The state’s indecisiveness in defining a very urgent reason clause on a marriage dispensation application at the Religious Court opens opportunities for judges to have different views in granting or rejecting a case. The essence of the very urgent reasons regulated in Law Number 16 of 2019 concerning Marriage should ideally be a barometer for judges’ considerations to determine the readiness of children to enter into marriage. This study aims to reveal the judges’ considerations in defining the very urgent reasons for the determination of law in the Bukittinggi Religious Court which are contradictory between one judge and another judge. This research departs from normative legal research based on legal documents. The approach used is a statute approach which is side by side with a qualitative approach by emphasizing on the analysis of data obtained through legal documents in the form of copies of the case for the determination of the legal dispensation of marriage at the Bukittinggi Religious Court. The results of this study prove that the judge’s powers and considerations in a marriage dispensation request with very urgent reasons produce a different output in the form of a legal determination. The judge granted case Number 26/Pdt.P/2023/PA.Bkt and rejected case Number 22/Pdt.P/2023/PA.Bkt. This phenomenon shows that the basic considerations of judges depart from various legal sources while still taking into account juridical, philosophical and sociological aspects based on the values that live in society
Fadhli et al. (Fri,) studied this question.