IMPLEMENTASI PERLINDUNGAN HAK-HAK ISTERI DALAM PUTUSAN CERAI TALAK DI PENGADILAN AGAMA SAMARINDA TAHUN 2020

This study discusses the implementation of the protection of wife's rights in divorce decisions at the Samarinda Religious Court in 2020. The author examines the efforts made by judges to provide protection for the rights of wives in decisions at the Samarinda Religious Court and analyzes six judges' decisions that have implications for the imposition of the wife's rights over mut'ah and iddah using John Rawls' theory of justice and the discovery of progressive law. The purpose of the study is to understand the efforts of the Samarinda Religious Court in protecting the wife's rights to mut'ah and iddah support in the 2020 divorce decision and to understand the analysis of the judge's decision in the divorce case at the Samarinda Religious Court according to John Rawls' theory of justice and the discovery of progressive law. This research is a library research with descriptive analytical research. The approach used by the author is a normative juridical approach with an approach to legal theories, namely John Rawls' theory of justice and Satjipto Rahardjo's progressive legal discovery. The data collection methods are documentation and interviews. Documentation was taken from six copies of the decision on the divorce case at the Religious Courts which had implications for the imposition of the wife's rights over mut'ah and iddah and interviews with three judges at the Samarinda Religious Court. The conclusions of this study are First, that the Samarinda Religious Courts have tried to provide protection for the rights of the wife in the divorce decision; Second, that from the analysis of the 6 decisions related to the implementation of the protection of the rights of the wife after divorce on mut'ah and iddah support in the divorce decision at the Samarinda Religious Court in 2020, it has not been fully in accordance with the principles of justice of John Rawls and has not made legal discoveries. progressive, namely by using the authority of ex-officio rights. This is due to the differences in the judge's paradigm of thinking textually and contextually