When divorce proceeds: rethinking mediation success in Indonesian religious courts

A study published on 4 November 2026

On 4 November 2026, AHKAM: Jurnal Ilmu Syariah published an article-in-press by Euis Nurlaelawati, Lindra Darnela, Muhrisun, Arif Sugitanata and Kholifatun Nur Mustofa. Its title, “Creating Peaceful Divorce,” points to a question that legal writing can flatten: what should count as success when a marriage has broken down and reconciliation is not a realistic aim? The journal’s issue record dates the release to 4 November and identifies the article as part of volume 26, number 2; the article page gives its abstract and method. The issue record and the article page are primary sources for this publication and its claims.

The authors describe a socio-legal qualitative study based on fieldwork in the Special Region of Yogyakarta and three Central Java regencies. Their abstract reports interviews with six mediators, judges and court staff, field observations and analysis of legal documents. They argue that divorce need not mean mediation failed. It may instead be an orderly resolution if the parties can negotiate fair terms for separation and understand their post-divorce rights and obligations.

Changing the measure of success

A reconciliation-only measure treats one outcome as the whole story: did the couple remain together? The study suggests another question: if the marriage ends, did mediation help the parties reach a fair and voluntary resolution? In that frame, a mediator may not repair a relationship but may still help identify an issue, explain legal implications or make room for an informed decision.

The authors’ abstract identifies three linked mechanisms: shifting the aim from preserving marriage to managing separation fairly; facilitating negotiation about post-divorce rights and obligations; and maintaining relational balance so consent is voluntary and informed. It further describes mediators identifying potentially neglected rights, explaining legal consequences, and using caucus sessions and reality testing. These are reported findings in the study, not a universal checklist or proof that every religious court uses these practices.

This distinction is useful because it puts process and distribution in view. A signed settlement alone does not establish that parties understood it or had a meaningful choice. Conversely, an unsuccessful attempt at reconciliation does not show that every part of mediation was fruitless. The study asks the reader to assess the work done in the negotiation as well as its ultimate marital outcome.

Procedure, practice and the limits of inference

The Supreme Court of Indonesia’s PERMA No. 1 of 2016 supplies the procedural backdrop. Its official legal-information record identifies it as a regulation on mediation in court and lists it as in force. The article’s abstract, by contrast, describes practice in religious-court disputes. Keeping the sources separate prevents a common mistake: treating a description of law on the books as proof of what happens in a mediation room.

A formal rule can specify when parties are referred, who may mediate and what happens when a process concludes without agreement. It cannot, by itself, show whether a party felt able to speak, understood an explanation or experienced family pressure during negotiation. Those questions require evidence about practice. Conversely, a small field study can illuminate situated practice but cannot replace the authoritative text when identifying the applicable procedural rule.

The reported design also sets boundaries. Interviews, observations and document review can explain how practitioners understand their work and how particular negotiations unfold. They do not, by themselves, estimate the frequency of fair settlements across all Indonesian courts or prove that a particular technique causes a result. The abstract names six interviewees across several roles, but does not give a sampling frame or a count of all observed cases. Stronger claims about sample and evidence require the full article.

What “peaceful” can mean

A hypothetical illustrates the difference. Suppose spouses agree that they will separate, but have not discussed a maintenance claim or the practical terms of an arrangement concerning children. A reconciliation-only measure might label the session unsuccessful as soon as divorce remains likely. A settlement-focused measure asks whether each person understood the options, whether the agreement accounts for relevant rights, and whether either person could decline without pressure. This example illustrates the article’s conceptual move; it is not a case from the fieldwork.

The word “peaceful” still calls for caution. A signed agreement is not automatically fair, and the absence of visible conflict does not demonstrate free consent. The article’s emphasis on relational balance points toward questions a reader can ask, while the abstract does not provide enough information to assess exactly how the researchers evaluated voluntariness or protected participants where bargaining power was unequal. That is a reason to consult the full text before drawing conclusions about the study’s evidence.

For legal historians and family-law scholars, the contribution is partly methodological. It directs attention away from a binary measure—marriage preserved or not—and toward procedure and the distributive consequences that make separation more or less just. Comparison with other court systems would require attention to local procedure, the authority of religious courts, access to legal assistance and parties’ own understandings of family obligation. The study does not show that its approach transfers unchanged elsewhere. Its narrower contribution is that a divorce proceeding can end mediation with a constructive agreement, so evaluation should consider fairness and informed consent alongside reconciliation.