Establishing the minimum age of marriage at 19 years through Law No. 16 of 2019 has not eliminated applications for a marriage dispensation, requiring judges to assess the tension between highly urgent grounds and the best interests of the child. This study analyzes the parameters of judicial consideration at the Marisa Religious Court and compares their application in Court Determination No. 177/Pdt.P/2025/PA.Msa, which was granted, and Court Determination No. 189/Pdt.P/2025/PA.Msa, which was denied. The study employed a socio-legal empirical method with a comparative case study design. Data were obtained through examination of court determinations, legislation, case data from 2019–2025, literature, and interviews with judges and were subsequently analyzed using a case matrix, thematic categorization, and source triangulation. The findings indicate that judicial considerations comprise legal-procedural dimensions; highly urgent grounds and evidentiary proof; the child's consent; education and psychosocial factors; reproductive health; economic responsibility; social context; and spirituality. The granted case was based on a combination of pregnancy, school dropout status, the parties' relative preparedness, and an assessment of lesser harm. The denied case demonstrated that biological preparedness and reproductive health requirements had not been met; the prospective husband's spiritual aspects were understood as supporting considerations rather than independent legal requirements. The novelty of this study lies in its comparison of two court determination outcomes from the same court and year, its reconstruction of a hierarchy of determinative grounds, and its formulation of a multidimensional assessment matrix. The findings are contextual and affirm that applications for a marriage dispensation must be examined rigorously and transparently, with due regard to the best interests of the child.
