The Juridical Construction Of Economic Abuse In Divorce Proceedings: An Analysis Of Judicial Reasoning And The Economic Protection Of Wives At The Lubuklinggau Religious Court

Abstract

Economic abuse is an increasingly recognized form of intimate partner abuse involving the restriction, control, exploitation, or depletion of economic resources. In divorce proceedings, its consequences may extend beyond marital dissolution and affect women’s economic security after separation. This study examines the forms of economic abuse identified in divorce cases, the judicial construction of economic facts, and the economic protection provided to wives at the Lubuklinggau Religious Court. The study employs a normative juridical method using case, statutory, and conceptual approaches. Twenty divorce judgments were screened, from which eight principal cases were selected based on the relevance and density of economic facts, judicial reasoning, and economic protection measures. The judgments were analyzed through qualitative content analysis focusing on economic conduct, economic harm, legal grounds, judicial considerations, and the operative parts of the decisions. The analysis applied five analytical categories of economic abuse (economic neglect, burden shifting, financial exploitation, economic depletion, and risk shifting); economic neglect, financial exploitation, and risk shifting were evidenced in the judgments, whereas burden shifting and economic depletion could not be independently established from the judicial record. However, economic facts were generally constructed within broader narratives of marital disputes, conflict, and marriage breakdown rather than as an autonomous category of economic abuse, indicating a recognition gap. Economic protection was reflected in iddah maintenance, mut’ah, and payment mechanisms preceding the delivery of divorce certificates. Nevertheless, a protection gap remains between recognition, post-divorce entitlement, enforcement, and recovery of specific economic losses caused by abusive economic conduct. The study concludes that a more differentiated juridical construction of economic abuse is necessary to strengthen substantive economic protection for women in divorce proceedings.