Skip to content

Indonesia UU 1/1974 Perkawinan and UU 23/2002 Perlindungan Anak (Verbatim)

TL;DR

Indonesia governs family law on a dual-track basis. The civil track runs under Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1974 tentang Perkawinan (Law 1/1974 on Marriage, in force 2 January 1974 with implementing regulation of 1 October 1975), as amended by UU 16/2019 in respect of marriage age. Child protection runs under Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2002 tentang Perlindungan Anak (Law 23/2002 on Child Protection), as amended by UU 35/2014 and UU 17/2016. For Muslim families the substantive framework additionally runs under the Kompilasi Hukum Islam (Compilation of Islamic Law, Presidential Instruction No. 1 of 1991, given force by Peraturan Pemerintah), administered by the Peradilan Agama (Religious Courts) which have exclusive jurisdiction over Islamic-family matters under UU 3/2006 amending UU 7/1989 tentang Peradilan Agama. Four provisions carry the operational anti-alienation weight in the civil track: UU 1/1974 art. 41(a) (parents' duty to raise, care for and educate the child continues after divorce, in the child's interest); UU 1/1974 art. 45 (parents' equal duty to educate the child until majority or marriage); UU 23/2002 art. 14(1) (the child's right not to be separated from his or her parents against his or her will, except where separation is necessary in the best interests of the child); UU 23/2002 art. 26(1)© (parents' duty to prevent marriage before the child reaches majority). The Indonesian text below is drawn from the consolidated JDIH publication; the English is a working translation for research use. Indonesia is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) — a defining constraint on cross-border civil-track and Islamic-track alienation practice, with substantial cross-border case-flow to Malaysia, Singapore, the Netherlands, Australia, Saudi Arabia and Japan.

Statute — Verbatim Text

Indonesian (consolidated text):

Akibat putusnya perkawinan karena perceraian ialah:

a. Baik ibu atau bapak tetap berkewajiban memelihara dan mendidik anak-anaknya, semata-mata berdasarkan kepentingan anak, bilamana ada perselisihan mengenai penguasaan anak-anak, Pengadilan memberi keputusannya;

b. Bapak yang bertanggung jawab atas semua biaya pemeliharaan dan pendidikan yang diperlukan anak itu; bilamana bapak dalam kenyataan tidak dapat memenuhi kewajiban tersebut, Pengadilan dapat menentukan bahwa ibu ikut memikul biaya tersebut;

c. Pengadilan dapat mewajibkan kepada bekas suami untuk memberikan biaya penghidupan dan/atau menentukan sesuatu kewajiban bagi bekas isteri.

English (working translation):

The consequences of the dissolution of marriage by divorce shall be:

(a) Both the mother and the father shall remain under the duty to maintain and educate their children, solely on the basis of the interest of the children; where there is a dispute concerning the penguasaan (holding of authority over) the children, the Court shall issue its decision;

(b) The father shall be responsible for all the costs of maintenance and education necessary for the child; where in fact the father is unable to fulfil that duty, the Court may determine that the mother shall also bear that cost;

© The Court may require the former husband to provide a subsistence allowance and/or determine an obligation on the former wife.

Operational note: Art. 41(a) is the operational anti-alienation core of the Indonesian civil track. Three features:

  • Duty preservation after divorce. "Both the mother and the father shall remain" (baik ibu atau bapak tetap berkewajiban) — the duty of care and education is preserved on both parents by force of statute, regardless of the divorce judgment or the penguasaan designation. This is the doctrinal footing for the argument that obstruction of the other parent's role is a failure of the residential parent's own duty under art. 41(a), not merely a violation of the other parent's rights.
  • "Solely on the basis of the interest of the child" (semata-mata berdasarkan kepentingan anak). The best-interests standard governs both parents' exercise of the preserved duty. Exercises inconsistent with the child's interest — including obstruction that harms the child's development — are outside the statutory grant.
  • Court-referral route on disputes over penguasaan. The Court decides where the parents cannot agree. "Penguasaan" is a broader concept than English-common-law "custody" — it includes decision-making authority, physical care and representation. The Court's determination fixes all three.

UU 1/1974 art. 45 — Parents' Duty to Raise and Educate the Child

Indonesian:

(1) Kedua orang tua wajib memelihara dan mendidik anak-anak mereka sebaik-baiknya.

(2) Kewajiban orang tua yang dimaksud dalam ayat (1) pasal ini berlaku sampai anak itu kawin atau dapat berdiri sendiri, kewajiban mana berlaku terus meskipun perkawinan antara kedua orang tua putus.

English:

(1) Both parents shall be obliged to maintain and educate their children in the best possible manner.

(2) The duty of the parents referred to in paragraph (1) of this article shall apply until the child marries or is able to stand alone; that duty shall continue even where the marriage between the two parents has been dissolved.

Operational note: Art. 45(1) codifies the parents' joint duty to maintain and educate. Art. 45(2) is the duration and preservation clause — the duty continues until the child marries or can stand alone (an intriguingly wide concept incorporating economic independence) and survives divorce. The duty is not extinguishable by court order or by agreement; it is a statutory continuing obligation.

UU 1/1974 art. 47 — Kekuasaan Orang Tua (Parental Authority)

Indonesian:

(1) Anak yang belum mencapai umur 18 (delapan belas) tahun atau belum pernah melangsungkan perkawinan ada di bawah kekuasaan orang tuanya selama mereka tidak dicabut dari kekuasaannya.

(2) Orang tua mewakili anak tersebut mengenai segala perbuatan hukum di dalam dan di luar Pengadilan.

English:

(1) A child who has not attained the age of eighteen years or who has not yet been married shall be under the parental authority of his or her parents so long as they have not been divested of that authority.

(2) The parents shall represent the child in all legal acts inside and outside the Court.

Operational note: Art. 47(1) codifies the age of majority for parental-authority purposes at 18 (subsequently harmonised with the marriage age of 19 by UU 16/2019 for marriage-consent purposes, but 18 remains the parental-authority threshold). Art. 47(2) is the joint-representation clause — both parents represent the child in all legal acts unless authority has been divested under art. 49.

UU 1/1974 art. 49 — Divestment of Parental Authority

Indonesian (extracts):

(1) Salah seorang atau kedua orang tua dapat dicabut kekuasaannya terhadap seorang anak atau lebih untuk waktu yang tertentu atas permintaan orang tua yang lain, keluarga anak dalam garis lurus ke atas dan saudara kandung yang telah dewasa atau pejabat yang berwenang, dengan keputusan Pengadilan dalam hal-hal:

a. Ia sangat melalaikan kewajibannya terhadap anaknya;

b. Ia berkelakuan buruk sekali.

(2) Meskipun orang tua dicabut kekuasaannya, mereka masih tetap berkewajiban untuk memberi biaya pemeliharaan kepada anak tersebut.

English:

(1) One or both of the parents may be divested of parental authority over one or more children for a specific period, upon application of the other parent, of relatives of the child in the direct ascending line, of adult siblings, or of an authorised officer, by decision of the Court, in the following cases:

(a) The parent has seriously neglected the duties toward the child;

(b) The parent has behaved very badly.

(2) Even where the parents have been divested of authority, they shall remain under the duty to provide the costs of maintenance to the child.

Operational note: Art. 49 is the divestment jurisdiction. Two features:

  • Standing. The other parent, relatives in the direct ascending line, adult siblings, and authorised officers may all apply. This is broader standing than a parents-only rule.
  • Preserved maintenance duty. Paragraph 2 preserves the maintenance duty even after divestment. The divestment removes authority but does not remove financial obligation.

The "seriously neglected the duties" (sangat melalaikan kewajibannya) formulation is broad and has been read by the Mahkamah Agung (Supreme Court) as capable of reaching persistent obstruction of the other parent's exercise where the pattern demonstrably harms the child's development.

UU 23/2002 art. 14 — The Child's Right Not to Be Separated From His or Her Parents (as amended by UU 35/2014)

Indonesian (consolidated text after the 2014 amendment):

(1) Setiap Anak berhak untuk diasuh oleh Orang Tuanya sendiri, kecuali jika ada alasan dan/atau aturan hukum yang sah menunjukkan bahwa pemisahan itu adalah demi kepentingan terbaik bagi Anak dan merupakan pertimbangan terakhir.

(2) Dalam hal terjadi pemisahan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1), Anak tetap berhak:

a. bertemu langsung dan berhubungan pribadi secara tetap dengan kedua Orang Tuanya;

b. mendapatkan pengasuhan, pemeliharaan, pendidikan dan perlindungan untuk proses tumbuh kembang dari kedua Orang Tuanya sesuai dengan kemampuan, bakat, dan minatnya;

c. memperoleh pembiayaan hidup dari kedua Orang Tuanya; dan

d. memperoleh Hak Anak lainnya.

English (working translation):

(1) Every Child shall have the right to be cared for by his or her own Parents, save where there is a legitimate reason and/or a valid rule of law demonstrating that separation is in the best interests of the Child and is a consideration of last resort.

(2) In the event that separation occurs as referred to in paragraph (1), the Child shall retain the right:

(a) to meet directly and to maintain personal relations regularly with both of his or her Parents;

(b) to obtain nurture, maintenance, education and protection for the process of growth and development from both of his or her Parents, in accordance with the abilities, talents and interests of the Child;

© to obtain living expenses from both of his or her Parents; and

(d) to obtain other Rights of the Child.

Operational note: Art. 14 as amended by UU 35/2014 is architecturally the anti-alienation core of the Indonesian scheme. Three features:

  • "Consideration of last resort" (pertimbangan terakhir). Separation from parents is authorised only where it is the best interests of the child AND is a last-resort consideration. This dual-conjunction test is strong: even where welfare-interests point toward separation, the separation is unlawful unless it is also a last-resort consideration.
  • Paragraph 2(a) preservation of direct meeting and personal relations. Where separation has been ordered, the child retains the right to meet directly and to maintain personal relations regularly with both parents. This is drafted as the child's right (following CDN art. 9(3)) but is enforceable by either parent as the child's representative.
  • Paragraph 2(b)-© preservation of nurture, education, protection, and living expenses. The child retains rights to these things from both parents — separation of authority does not extinguish the child's substantive entitlements against the non-residential parent.

Art. 14 is the strongest textual formulation of the CDN art. 9(3) architecture in Southeast Asian family law after Vietnam LHNGĐ art. 82(3) and South Korea Civil Act art. 837-2(1). The Indonesian formulation is distinctive in codifying the "last resort" qualifier explicitly.

UU 23/2002 art. 26 — Parents' Duties (as amended by UU 35/2014)

Indonesian (consolidated text after the 2014 amendment):

(1) Orang Tua berkewajiban dan bertanggung jawab untuk:

a. mengasuh, memelihara, mendidik, dan melindungi Anak;

b. menumbuhkembangkan Anak sesuai dengan kemampuan, bakat, dan minatnya;

c. mencegah terjadinya perkawinan pada usia Anak-anak; dan

d. memberikan pendidikan karakter dan penanaman nilai budi pekerti pada Anak.

(2) Dalam hal Orang Tua tidak ada, atau tidak diketahui keberadaannya, atau karena suatu sebab, tidak dapat melaksanakan kewajiban dan tanggung jawabnya, maka kewajiban dan tanggung jawab sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) dapat beralih kepada Keluarga, yang dilaksanakan sesuai dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku.

English:

(1) The Parents shall be under the duty and responsibility to:

(a) nurture, maintain, educate and protect the Child;

(b) grow and develop the Child in accordance with the abilities, talents and interests of the Child;

© prevent the occurrence of child marriage; and

(d) provide character education and instill values of good conduct in the Child.

(2) In the event that the Parents are absent, or their whereabouts are unknown, or by reason of any cause cannot perform their duty and responsibility, the duty and responsibility referred to in paragraph (1) may be transferred to the Family, to be performed in accordance with the provisions of the applicable laws and regulations.

Operational note: Art. 26(1)(a) codifies the substantive parental duty — nurture, maintain, educate, protect. Paragraph 1(b) — "grow and develop the Child in accordance with the abilities, talents and interests" — has been read by Indonesian family-court commentary as reading onto the residential parent's duty to facilitate the child's growth including the child's relationships (with the non-residential parent). Obstruction of contact is answerable under art. 26(1)(b) as a failure to grow the child in accordance with the child's interests (which include maintenance of the parent-child relationship).

The Islamic Track — Structural Note

For Muslim families, the substantive framework runs additionally through the Kompilasi Hukum Islam (KHI, 1991). Key provisions:

  • KHI art. 105 — In case of divorce, hadhanah (care and physical custody) of the child before mumayyiz (age of discernment, conventionally 12) is with the mother; after mumayyiz, the child chooses; the nafkah (maintenance) is on the father.
  • KHI art. 156 — On divorce, if there is a dispute, the Religious Court determines hadhanah; the general welfare-of-the-child standard governs.

Jurisdiction over Islamic-family matters (including hadhanah disputes) is vested in the Peradilan Agama (Religious Courts) under UU 3/2006 amending UU 7/1989, which extended the Religious Courts' jurisdiction beyond the Java-Madura core to national scope. Cross-track proceedings — where one parent is Muslim and the other is not — involve substantial jurisdictional-conflict litigation and are decided under the general civil framework at UU 1/1974 supplemented by the anti-discrimination guarantees of the 1945 Constitution and UU 39/1999 on Human Rights.

Structural Reading (Civil Track)

Six moving parts:

  1. UU 1/1974 art. 41(a) — Post-divorce duty preservation of both parents; court decides penguasaan disputes on the child's interest.
  2. UU 1/1974 art. 45 — Joint parental duty of maintenance and education, continuing until child marries or stands alone, and surviving divorce.
  3. UU 1/1974 art. 47(1)–(2) — Parental authority until age 18; joint representation of the child in legal acts.
  4. UU 1/1974 art. 49 — Divestment jurisdiction with broad standing; maintenance duty preserved even after divestment.
  5. UU 23/2002 art. 14(1) — Child's right not to be separated from parents; separation only as a last-resort consideration in best interests.
  6. UU 23/2002 art. 14(2) + art. 26 — Preservation of child's rights to direct meeting, personal relations, nurture, education, protection and living expenses from both parents even after separation; parents' substantive duty of nurture-maintain-educate-protect and of growing the child in accordance with the child's interests.

Two distinguishing features of the Indonesian civil-track scheme:

  • UU 23/2002 art. 14 last-resort qualifier. The dual-conjunction test (best interests AND last-resort consideration) is textually distinctive and provides a strong statutory barrier to separation-based outcomes. In alienation practice, art. 14 is invoked defensively where the residential parent seeks to formalise a separation of the non-residential parent from the child.
  • UU 1/1974 art. 41(a) "both parents remain". The duty preservation is explicit — divorce does not extinguish the substantive parental duty. This is the doctrinal footing for the argument that obstruction is a failure of the residential parent's own duty under art. 41(a), not merely a violation of the other parent's rights.

Mahkamah Agung (Supreme Court) — Interpretive Line

The Mahkamah Agung (Supreme Court of Indonesia) has a substantial line on UU 1/1974 art. 41 and on the interaction between art. 41 and UU 23/2002 art. 14. Case-identifiers are typically in the format Putusan MA No. NNN K/YY/YYYY. Doctrinal points:

  • Kepentingan terbaik anak (best interests of the child) as substantive standard. Post-2002, the Supreme Court reads UU 1/1974 art. 41(a) together with UU 23/2002 art. 14 to ground a substantive best-interests analysis rather than a formal-parental-fitness analysis. The 2007 – 2024 case-line is stable on the point.
  • Art. 14 last-resort qualifier as substantive. The Supreme Court has treated the "last resort" formulation as requiring specific findings on the impossibility of alternative arrangements before separation is authorised.
  • Persistent obstruction as UU 1/1974 art. 49(1)(a) "serious neglect". The Supreme Court has read the "seriously neglected the duties" formulation as reaching persistent obstruction of the other parent's exercise where the pattern demonstrably harms the child's development.
  • Child's expressed refusal and induced influence. The Supreme Court requires the trial court to assess whether the child's expressed view reflects the child's own position, especially where the pattern of obstruction is documented.

Mahkamah Konstitusi (Constitutional Court) — Framing

The Constitutional Court of Indonesia has held that the State's obligations under the 1945 Constitution art. 28B(2) (child's right to survival, growth and protection) and art. 28C (right to develop oneself) run in parallel with the CDN (Indonesia acceded 5 September 1990) and with UU 39/1999 on Human Rights. Formally correct orders that are not enforced do not discharge the State's obligation.

Cross-Border Framework — The Non-Hague Constraint

  • Hague 1980 non-membership. Indonesia is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. No Hague-return mechanism is available in respect of Indonesian children removed to or from Indonesia — a defining constraint on Indonesian cross-border custody practice.
  • Hague 1996 non-membership. Indonesia is not a party to the Hague Convention on Parental Responsibility (1996).
  • CDN. Indonesia acceded 5 September 1990. The Convention is interpretive rather than directly enforceable in the dualist system, but has been invoked by the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court in reasoning welfare-paramountcy questions.
  • Bilateral cooperation. Indonesia has substantial cross-border family-law practice with Malaysia (shared border and diaspora), Singapore, the Netherlands (historical colonial ties and continuing diaspora), Australia (geographic proximity and mixed-nationality families), Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states (labour-migration streams), and Japan (marriage-migration streams).
  • Diaspora concentrations. Malaysia (~2.5 million overseas Indonesians, largest concentration), Saudi Arabia (~1 million), the Netherlands (~1.8 million ethnic Indonesian descendants), Singapore (~200,000), Australia (~85,000), the United States (~110,000), Japan (~60,000), Hong Kong (~150,000, primarily migrant workers).

Practical Application

Motion Language (Indonesian, statute-anchored)

"Termohon telah secara sistematis menghalangi Pemohon menjalankan kewajiban memelihara dan mendidik anak sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 41 huruf a Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1974 tentang Perkawinan. Perbuatan Termohon telah pula menghalangi hak Anak untuk bertemu langsung dan berhubungan pribadi secara tetap dengan Pemohon sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 14 ayat (2) huruf a Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2002 tentang Perlindungan Anak sebagaimana telah diubah dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 35 Tahun 2014. Perbuatan tersebut merupakan pelalaian yang sangat terhadap kewajiban dalam pengertian Pasal 49 ayat (1) huruf a Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1974. Pemohon memohon Pengadilan: (i) menetapkan pengaturan penguasaan dan pemeliharaan anak berdasarkan Pasal 41 huruf a Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1974 semata-mata berdasarkan kepentingan terbaik anak; (ii) menetapkan hak Anak dan kewajiban Termohon sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 14 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2002; (iii) dalam hal diperlukan, mencabut kekuasaan Termohon berdasarkan Pasal 49 Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1974 sesuai dengan proporsionalitasnya."

English (working translation for pleading-support purposes)

"The respondent has systematically obstructed the applicant from performing the duty of maintenance and education of the child as referred to in art. 41(a) of Law 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The respondent's conduct has further obstructed the child's right to meet directly and to maintain personal relations regularly with the applicant as referred to in art. 14(2)(a) of Law 23 of 2002 on Child Protection as amended by Law 35 of 2014. That conduct constitutes serious neglect of duty within the meaning of art. 49(1)(a) of Law 1 of 1974. The applicant requests that the Court: (i) determine the arrangement of penguasaan and maintenance of the child pursuant to art. 41(a) of Law 1 of 1974, solely on the basis of the best interests of the child; (ii) determine the child's rights and the respondent's duties under art. 14(2) of Law 23 of 2002; (iii) as necessary, divest the respondent of parental authority under art. 49 of Law 1 of 1974 in proportion to the conduct."

Pleading Sequence

  1. Anchor the duty-preservation via UU 1/1974 art. 41(a) — the duty on both parents remains after divorce.
  2. Plead the child's right against separation under UU 23/2002 art. 14(1) with the dual-conjunction test (best interests AND last-resort).
  3. Plead the preservation of the child's direct-meeting and personal-relations right under UU 23/2002 art. 14(2)(a).
  4. Where persistent obstruction is documented, invoke UU 1/1974 art. 49(1)(a) "serious neglect" as the divestment ground.
  5. Reason the best-interests standard on the kepentingan terbaik anak framework, cross-referencing CDN art. 3 as interpretive authority.
  6. Where the child's expressed wishes are invoked against the applicant, plead the induced-influence assessment requirement per the Mahkamah Agung line.
  7. In Islamic-track cases with a jurisdictional-conflict dimension, plead the civil-jurisdiction question with reference to UU 3/2006 and UU 39/1999 on Human Rights.
  8. In cross-border cases, note the non-Hague constraint and route through bilateral cooperation, comity, or receiving-jurisdiction domestic frameworks.

Citing Posts on antialienate.com

Post URL
Indonesia + Indonesian diaspora PA guide https://antialienate.com/blog/indonesia-indonesian-diaspora-parental-alienation
Southeast Asia PA overview https://antialienate.com/blog/southeast-asia-parental-alienation
Non-Hague Asia cross-border PA https://antialienate.com/blog/non-hague-asia-parental-alienation
Last-resort separation qualifier — comparative https://antialienate.com/blog/last-resort-separation-qualifier-comparative
International custody battles — cross-border rights https://antialienate.com/blog/international-custody-battles-your-rights

Sources

By Alan Markson. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Disclaimer. This is a research summary of Indonesian statute text with a working English translation. It is not legal advice, it is not an official translation, and it is not a substitute for an Indonesian family-law advokat (advokat yang bergerak di bidang hukum keluarga) or, in Islamic-track matters, a Peradilan Agama practitioner. The Indonesian text at peraturan.bpk.go.id (JDIH) is the authoritative source; where the working English rendering diverges from the Indonesian original, the Indonesian controls. Supreme Court and Constitutional Court decisions must be verified against mahkamahagung.go.id and mkri.id before pleading.