AKIBAT HUKUM UTANG DALAM PERKAWINAN (Studi Komparasi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Kota Semarang Nomor 145/Pdt.G/2005/PN.Smg, Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Semarang Nomor 205/Pdt/2006/PT.Smg dan Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1904 K/Pdt/2007)
| Main Authors: | , IRA FITRIA, , Dr. Tata Wijayanta, S.H., M.Hum. |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis NonPeerReviewed |
| Terbitan: |
[Yogyakarta] : Universitas Gadjah Mada
, 2013
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: |
https://repository.ugm.ac.id/123289/ http://etd.ugm.ac.id/index.php?mod=penelitian_detail&sub=PenelitianDetail&act=view&typ=html&buku_id=63400 |
Daftar Isi:
- This research is aimed at analyzing the interpretation of judges regarding debt in marriage and analyzing the dispute resolution regarding debt in marriage based on the verdicts. The research belongs to a juridical normative research, which employed secondary data taken from primary law materials, secondary law materials and tertiary law materials.Data were collected by employing documentary method, while the instrument of collecting data was document study. The obtained data were analyzed using content analysis and comparative analysis. The research result indicates that the judge of the District Court was of the opinion that the debt was designated for the needs of the married couple so that it became a shared responsibility. The judge of the High Court was of the opinion that according to the evidences of witness and receipt, the wife was not really proven to know her husband�s debt so that it became the husband�s responsibility only. The judge of the Supreme Court was of the opinion that based on the evidence, the debt occurred during the period of marriage. Based on the research result, it can be concluded that the interpretation of judge regarding the debt in marriage according to the verdict of the District Court is based on the debt is designated for the needs of the married couple so that it become a shared responsibility. This is because the debt occurred during the period of marriage without a prenuptial agreement. The interpretation of judge according the verdict of the High Court is based on the absence of authentic evidence that the wife agreed on the debt taken by her husband so that the debt become the husband�s responsibility. Meanwhile, the verdict of the Supreme Court is based on the fact that the debt occurred during the period of marriage so that any loan becomes the responsibility of the married couple. The dispute resolution regarding the debt in marriage, according the verdict of the District Court, is that the debt becomes responsibility of the married couple. According to the verdict of High Court, the debt settlement belongs to the obligation of the husband only. According the verdict of the Supreme Court, the existing debt becomes the responsibility of the married couple. Therefore, it is suggested that in handing down the case the judge should not only based on the provisions of the law and the judge is allowed to hand down the case according to the judge�s conviction which must be based on the strong legal basis.