ANALISIS YURIDIS AKTA PERNYATAAN NAFKAH TERHADAP ISTRI DAN ANAK YANG DIBUAT DI HADAPAN NOTARIS ( STUDI PUTUSAN MA RI NO.3002 K/PDT/2015 )
| Main Author: | sh,mkn, rita |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article info application/pdf eJournal |
| Bahasa: | eng |
| Terbitan: |
Universitas Harapan Medan
, 2021
|
| Online Access: |
https://jurnal.harapan.ac.id/index.php/JPH/article/view/319 https://jurnal.harapan.ac.id/index.php/JPH/article/view/319/198 |
| ctrlnum |
article-319 |
|---|---|
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<dc schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd"><title lang="en-US">ANALISIS YURIDIS AKTA PERNYATAAN NAFKAH TERHADAP ISTRI DAN ANAK YANG DIBUAT DI HADAPAN NOTARIS ( STUDI PUTUSAN MA RI NO.3002 K/PDT/2015 )</title><creator>sh,mkn, rita</creator><description lang="en-US">A divorce is not a goal in a marriage; however a marriage sometimes ends with it, as experienced by AH and YR. YR filed a lawsuit against her husband AH to Muara Enim District Court after a divorce. YR felt financially injured by the action of AH for having violated the content of Statement Deed No.72 dated November 23, 2012 concerning Ah’s obligations to provide support for her and their children after their divorce took place. At District Court level, the judge in Ruling No.14/PDT.G/2014/PN.ME dated August 19, 214 granted parts of YR’s lawsuit. The judge stated that the Statement Deed is valid before the law, and is more valid by the issuance of the Higher Court Ruling No.114/PDT/2014/PT.PLG; which strengthens the District Court Ruling. However, the judge at cassation level granted the cassation application filed by AH. I the concern of the Supreme Court Judge, the Statement Deed is legally defective because it contradicts Article 45 paragraph (2) of the Marriage Act. The research problems are how about the legal force of the Deed of Statement to provide support for wife and child that was drawn up before a Notary, how about the legal consideration of the judge in the Supreme Court Verdict&nbsp; No.3002K/PDT/2015 and how about the legal liability of the Notary for the revocation of the Deed of Statement pursuant to the Supreme Court Verdict No.3002K/PDT/2015.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Thic is a normative juridical research which analyzes the law, It employs descriptive analysis approach. The data are analyzed qualitatively.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Deed of Statement No.72 dated November 23, 2012, that was drawn up before Notray AD contains a statement of promise or a clause that does not fulfill&nbsp; the ojective requirements for an agreement. It bocomes null and void and has no legal force. It has been degraded in to an underhanded deed.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Supreme Court Verdict lacks of consideration because the judge was not sufficiently conscientious and has no evident legal ground. The degraded Statement Deed may become the ground to the injured party to file a lawsuit for indemnity such as compensation for all costs, fine and interests incurred to the Notray AD. It is suggested that a deed be carefully and conscientiously drawn up by noticing all prevailing legal aspects. It is recommended that judges have extensive knowledge, be update with the development of prevailing positive laws, so that they will produce responsible ruling with evident and obvious legal consideration. It is also suggested that notaries excercise&nbsp; their role well to provide legal certainty and legal protection for the person appeaering before them.</description><description lang="id-ID">Perceraian bukan merupakan tujuan suatu perkawinan, akan tetapi tidak jarang perkawinan berakhir dengan perceraian, sebagaimana dialami AH dan YR. YR mengajukan gugatan kepada AH yang merupakan suami YR di Pengadilan NegeriMuara Enimsetelah bercerai. YR merasa telah dirugikan akibat perbuatan AH yang melanggar isi Akta Pernyataan No.72 tanggal 23 November 2012 mengenai kewajiban AH memberikan nafkah kepada istri dan anak jika terjadi perceraian. Pada tingkat PN, hakim dalam Putusan No.14/PDT.G/2014/PN.ME tanggal 19 Agustus 2014 mengabulkan gugatan YR sebagian. Hakim tingkat PN menyatakan Akta Pernyataan tersebut adalah sah menurut hukum, yang kemudiandikuatkan dengan Putusan &nbsp;PT No.114/PDT/2014/PT.PLG., menguatkan Putusan PN tersebut, namun Hakim pada tingkat kasasi mengabulkan permohonan kasasi AH. Menurut Hakim MA, Akta Pernyataan cacat secara hukum, karenaAkta Pernyataan bertentangan dengan Pasal 45 Ayat (2) UU Perkawinan. Rumusan permasalahan dalam penelitian ini yaitu, mengenai&nbsp; kekuatan hukum Akta Pernyataan nafkah yang dibuat di hadapan notaris,menganalisis pertimbangan hakim dalam Putusan MA RI No.3002K/PDT/2015dan mengetahui tanggung jawab hukum notaris terhadap pembatalan Akta Pernyataanberdasarkan Putusan MA RI No.3002K/PDT/2015.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif atau penelitian yang menganalisis hukum, dengan metode pendekatan penelitianyang bersifat deskriptif analisis dan untuk kemudian data-data yang diperoleh dianalisis secara kualitatif.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Akta Pernyataan No.72 tanggal 23 Nopember 2012, yang dibuat dihadapan notaris AD memuat pernyataan mengenai janji atau klausul yang tidak memenuhi syarat objektif perjanjian. Akta Pernyataan tersebut batal demi hukum dan tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum.Akta Pernyataan&nbsp; tersebut terdegradasi menjadi suatu akta dibawah tangan.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Putusan Hakim MA tidak cukup pertimbangan, karena hakim tidak cermat dan tidak mempunyai dasar hukum yang jelas. Akta Pernyataan yang terdegradasidapat menjadi dasar pihak yang merasa dirugikan untuk mengajukan suatu tuntutan ganti kerugian berupa penggantian biaya, denda atau bunga yang timbul kepada Notaris AD. Suatu akta disarankan dibuat dengan seksama, cermat dan memperhatikan segala aspek aspek hukum yang berlaku. Hakim sebaiknya memiliki wawasan yang luas dan menggali, serta senantiasa mengikuti perkembangan hukum positif yang berlaku, sehingga putusan yang dihasilkan merupakan putusan yang bertanggung jawab dengan pertimbangan hukum yang cukup dan jelas.Pelaksanaan jabatan notaris harus dijalankan demikian agar menciptakan kepastian hukum dan memberikan perlindungan hukum bagi para penghadap dan notaris itu sendiri.</description><publisher lang="en-US">Universitas Harapan Medan</publisher><date>2021-03-19</date><type>Journal:Article</type><type>Other:info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</type><type>Journal:Article</type><type>File:application/pdf</type><identifier>https://jurnal.harapan.ac.id/index.php/JPH/article/view/319</identifier><source lang="en-US">Jurnal Perspektif Hukum; Vol 2 No 1 (2021): Februari 2021; 117-147</source><source>2716-5027</source><source>2715-8888</source><language>eng</language><relation>https://jurnal.harapan.ac.id/index.php/JPH/article/view/319/198</relation><rights lang="en-US">Copyright (c) 2021 Jurnal Perspektif Hukum</rights><recordID>article-319</recordID></dc>
|
| language |
eng |
| format |
Journal:Article Journal Other:info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Other File:application/pdf File Journal:eJournal |
| author |
sh,mkn, rita |
| title |
ANALISIS YURIDIS AKTA PERNYATAAN NAFKAH TERHADAP ISTRI DAN ANAK YANG DIBUAT DI HADAPAN NOTARIS ( STUDI PUTUSAN MA RI NO.3002 K/PDT/2015 ) |
| publisher |
Universitas Harapan Medan |
| publishDate |
2021 |
| url |
https://jurnal.harapan.ac.id/index.php/JPH/article/view/319 https://jurnal.harapan.ac.id/index.php/JPH/article/view/319/198 |
| contents |
A divorce is not a goal in a marriage; however a marriage sometimes ends with it, as experienced by AH and YR. YR filed a lawsuit against her husband AH to Muara Enim District Court after a divorce. YR felt financially injured by the action of AH for having violated the content of Statement Deed No.72 dated November 23, 2012 concerning Ah’s obligations to provide support for her and their children after their divorce took place. At District Court level, the judge in Ruling No.14/PDT.G/2014/PN.ME dated August 19, 214 granted parts of YR’s lawsuit. The judge stated that the Statement Deed is valid before the law, and is more valid by the issuance of the Higher Court Ruling No.114/PDT/2014/PT.PLG; which strengthens the District Court Ruling. However, the judge at cassation level granted the cassation application filed by AH. I the concern of the Supreme Court Judge, the Statement Deed is legally defective because it contradicts Article 45 paragraph (2) of the Marriage Act. The research problems are how about the legal force of the Deed of Statement to provide support for wife and child that was drawn up before a Notary, how about the legal consideration of the judge in the Supreme Court Verdict No.3002K/PDT/2015 and how about the legal liability of the Notary for the revocation of the Deed of Statement pursuant to the Supreme Court Verdict No.3002K/PDT/2015.
Thic is a normative juridical research which analyzes the law, It employs descriptive analysis approach. The data are analyzed qualitatively.
The Deed of Statement No.72 dated November 23, 2012, that was drawn up before Notray AD contains a statement of promise or a clause that does not fulfill the ojective requirements for an agreement. It bocomes null and void and has no legal force. It has been degraded in to an underhanded deed.
The Supreme Court Verdict lacks of consideration because the judge was not sufficiently conscientious and has no evident legal ground. The degraded Statement Deed may become the ground to the injured party to file a lawsuit for indemnity such as compensation for all costs, fine and interests incurred to the Notray AD. It is suggested that a deed be carefully and conscientiously drawn up by noticing all prevailing legal aspects. It is recommended that judges have extensive knowledge, be update with the development of prevailing positive laws, so that they will produce responsible ruling with evident and obvious legal consideration. It is also suggested that notaries excercise their role well to provide legal certainty and legal protection for the person appeaering before them. Perceraian bukan merupakan tujuan suatu perkawinan, akan tetapi tidak jarang perkawinan berakhir dengan perceraian, sebagaimana dialami AH dan YR. YR mengajukan gugatan kepada AH yang merupakan suami YR di Pengadilan NegeriMuara Enimsetelah bercerai. YR merasa telah dirugikan akibat perbuatan AH yang melanggar isi Akta Pernyataan No.72 tanggal 23 November 2012 mengenai kewajiban AH memberikan nafkah kepada istri dan anak jika terjadi perceraian. Pada tingkat PN, hakim dalam Putusan No.14/PDT.G/2014/PN.ME tanggal 19 Agustus 2014 mengabulkan gugatan YR sebagian. Hakim tingkat PN menyatakan Akta Pernyataan tersebut adalah sah menurut hukum, yang kemudiandikuatkan dengan Putusan PT No.114/PDT/2014/PT.PLG., menguatkan Putusan PN tersebut, namun Hakim pada tingkat kasasi mengabulkan permohonan kasasi AH. Menurut Hakim MA, Akta Pernyataan cacat secara hukum, karenaAkta Pernyataan bertentangan dengan Pasal 45 Ayat (2) UU Perkawinan. Rumusan permasalahan dalam penelitian ini yaitu, mengenai kekuatan hukum Akta Pernyataan nafkah yang dibuat di hadapan notaris,menganalisis pertimbangan hakim dalam Putusan MA RI No.3002K/PDT/2015dan mengetahui tanggung jawab hukum notaris terhadap pembatalan Akta Pernyataanberdasarkan Putusan MA RI No.3002K/PDT/2015. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif atau penelitian yang menganalisis hukum, dengan metode pendekatan penelitianyang bersifat deskriptif analisis dan untuk kemudian data-data yang diperoleh dianalisis secara kualitatif. Akta Pernyataan No.72 tanggal 23 Nopember 2012, yang dibuat dihadapan notaris AD memuat pernyataan mengenai janji atau klausul yang tidak memenuhi syarat objektif perjanjian. Akta Pernyataan tersebut batal demi hukum dan tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum.Akta Pernyataan tersebut terdegradasi menjadi suatu akta dibawah tangan. Putusan Hakim MA tidak cukup pertimbangan, karena hakim tidak cermat dan tidak mempunyai dasar hukum yang jelas. Akta Pernyataan yang terdegradasidapat menjadi dasar pihak yang merasa dirugikan untuk mengajukan suatu tuntutan ganti kerugian berupa penggantian biaya, denda atau bunga yang timbul kepada Notaris AD. Suatu akta disarankan dibuat dengan seksama, cermat dan memperhatikan segala aspek aspek hukum yang berlaku. Hakim sebaiknya memiliki wawasan yang luas dan menggali, serta senantiasa mengikuti perkembangan hukum positif yang berlaku, sehingga putusan yang dihasilkan merupakan putusan yang bertanggung jawab dengan pertimbangan hukum yang cukup dan jelas.Pelaksanaan jabatan notaris harus dijalankan demikian agar menciptakan kepastian hukum dan memberikan perlindungan hukum bagi para penghadap dan notaris itu sendiri. |
| id |
IOS15723.article-319 |
| institution |
Universitas Harapan Medan |
| institution_id |
5575 |
| institution_type |
library:university library |
| library |
Perpustakaan UnHar |
| library_id |
4219 |
| collection |
Jurnal Perspektif Hukum |
| repository_id |
15723 |
| subject_area |
Law/Ilmu Hukum ilmu sosial |
| city |
KOTA MEDAN |
| province |
SUMATERA UTARA |
| repoId |
IOS15723 |
| first_indexed |
2021-08-18T08:16:04Z |
| last_indexed |
2021-08-18T08:16:04Z |
| recordtype |
dc |
| _version_ |
1708419052093833216 |
| score |
17.538404 |