The increase of the minimum marriage age is intended to reduce the number of child marriages. However, Article 7 section (2) of the marriage law revision states that marriage dispensation can be requested for emergency reasons if a deviation takes place. Consequently, marriage dispensations in various regions have drastically increased after the revision. Hence, judges’ active role is needed to adjudicate this case, including classifying the criteria of emergency reasons and judges’ considerations to grant the application of marriage dispensation. This study was normative and empirical legal research, and collected data through documentation and library study. The data source was secondary data in the form of primary legal materials, including Law no. 1 of 1974 concerning marriage, Law no. 16 of 2019 concerning amendments to Law Number 1 of 1974, the Supreme Court Regulation Number 5 of 2019 concerning Guidelines for Adjudicating Marriage Dispensation Cases and Granting Marriage Dispensation, and secondary legal materials including scientific journals and articles. The study approach was a study case, and the data were analyzed by descriptive analysis. This study found that “emergency reasons” as judges’ consideration in deciding a marriage dispensation at the Tenggarong Religious Court as were: (1) having been in a long period of relationship; (2) an unexpected pregnancy, (3) often going to a date, and (4) living in the same house as the prospective husband.

Problems in fulfilling women's rights after divorce in Religious Courts still exist due to the weakness of supporting elements for the court decisions and their procedures, and obstacles from the ex-couples. Therefore, religious judges are expected to have sensitivity and support for women in making decisions with the value of justice, legal certainty, and benefit. This normative juridical study used statutory and conceptual approaches to explain the use of ex officio in fulfilling iddah and mut'ah living in the Samarinda Religious Court and its suitability to legal purposes. A literary study was done in collecting data by compiling secondary data related to the theme. Then, the data were analyzed using the qualitative descriptive method. Ex officio discourses and legal objectives theory were used to analyze the raised issues. Fulfilling iddah and mut'ah living through ex officio at the Samarinda Religious Court in talaq divorces refers to Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) No. 3 of 2017, and Circular Letter of Supreme Court (SEMA) No. 1 of 2017. Meanwhile, the application of ex officio in lawsuit divorces refers to PERMA No. 3 of 2017 and SEMA No. 2 of 2019. The fulfillment of women's rights after divorce at the Religious Courts through ex officio aligns with legal objectives: legal certainty, justice, and benefit.

Allegedly, some of judge’s verdicts are gender-biased that it makes this an interesting research topic. This paper aims to observe gender sensitivity of judges’ verdicts in Samarinda and Magelang Religious Courts as the implementation of PERMA Number 03 of 2017 during 2017-2019. As empirical normative legal research, this study used a qualitative descriptive method as the data analysis. The findings of research are: First, judges’ verdicts, both in ṭalāq and divorce cases, in Magelang Religious Court showed very good gender sensitivity. The different condition occurred in ṭalāq divorce verdicts at Samarinda Religious Court during 2017 and 2018 although in 2019, it showed a little improvement on gender sensitivity. However, verdicts of divorce lawsuit from 2017 to 2019 did not show likewise and it was very poor in gender sensitivity. Second, in Magelang Religious Court, PERMA Number 03 of 2017 had been very well implemented whereas in Samarinda Religious Court, it did not so as there found no much differences between verdicts before issuence of the PERMA and afterward.(Beberapa putusan hakim dinilai bias gender sehingga topik ini menjadi menarik untuk diteliti. Tulisan ini ingin mengkaji sensitivitas gender dalam putusan hakim di Pengadilan Agama Magelang dan Samarinda serta implementasi PERMA Nomor 03 Tahun 2017 selama 2017-2019. Sebagai penelitian hukum normatif empiris, tulisan ini menggunakan metode analisis data deskriptif kualitatif. Temuan penelitian adalah: Pertama, putusan hakim di Pengadilan Agama Magelang, baik dalam kasus cerai ṭalāq maupun cerai gugat, sudah menunjukkan sensitivitas gender yang sangat baik. Sementara itu untuk Pengadilan Agama Samarinda, putusan cerai ṭalāq pada 2017 dan 2018 tidaklah demikian meski ada sedikit kemajuan dalam hal sensitivitas gender pada putusan-putusan tahun 2019. Buruknya sensitivitas gender juga tampak di berbagai putusan cerai gugat di Pengadilan Agama Samarinda sejak 2017 sampai 2019. Kedua, PERMA Nomor 03 Tahun 2017 sudah terimplementasi dengan sangat baik di Pengadilan Agama Magelang. Namun demikian, hal yang sama tidak ditemukan di Pengadilan Agama Samarinda sebab keberadaan PERMA tersebut tidak berpengaruh signifikan terhadap putusan-putusan yang dikeluarkan sebelum maupun sesudahnya)