This research is motivated by the continued prevalence of marriage dispensations following the enactment of Law Number 16 of 2019, which raised the minimum age for marriage to 19 for both men and women. Although the legislative amendment aimed to protect children from the negative impacts of early marriage, in practice, Religious Courts continue to grant marriage dispensations based on various reasons deemed urgent. One of the cases examined in this study is the Madiun Regency Religious Court Decision Number 271/Pdt.P/2025/PA.Kab.Mn.
The research questions addressed are: (1) what legal considerations guided the judge in granting the marriage dispensation application following the enactment of Law Number 16 of 2019, and (2) what is the juridical analysis of the decision from the perspectives of Law Number 16 of 2019, the Child Protection Law, Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) Number 5 of 2019, and the principle of the best interests of the child. This study employs a normative-juridical research method using a case study approach. Data were obtained through a literature review of legislation, court decisions, books, journals, and other legal materials. Data analysis was conducted qualitatively using techniques of interpretation, comparison, evaluation, and deduction.
The research findings indicate that, in Decision Number 271/Pdt.P/2025/PA.Kab.Mn, the judge utilized juridical, sociological, and religious considerations in granting the marriage dispensation application. The prospective wife's pregnancy was cited as an urgent reason under Article 7, paragraph (2) of Law Number 16 of 2019. Furthermore, the judge took into account the family's social circumstances, potential social stigma, and religious considerations—specifically the prevention of *zina* (illicit sexual relations) and the effort to provide legal status to the resulting pregnancy.
However, a legal analysis reveals that the judge’s reasoning prioritized sociological and religious aspects over the comprehensive protection of the child's rights. The ruling did not fully uphold the principle of the "best interests of the child," as it lacked recommendations from psychologists or health experts and provided minimal analysis regarding the long-term impact on the education, reproductive health, and psychological readiness of the prospective bride and groom, who were still minors.
The study concludes that Ruling Number 271/Pdt.P/2025/PA.Kab.Mn satisfied the formal requirements for a marriage dispensation but fell short of optimally implementing the spirit of child protection mandated by Law Number 16 of 2019, the Child Protection Law, and Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) Number 5 of 2019. Therefore, there is a need to improve the quality of judicial reasoning to ensure it is more holistic, grounded in expert evidence, and focused on the best interests and future of the child.