Recalcitrant Husband Ordered To Pay $183,000 Fine

Family Court rules divorce recalcitrant must pay high compensatory damages to wife with whom he has not cohabited since 2002. 'Refusing to grant a get violates the values protected by Israel’s Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom,' says judge.

Family Court rules divorce recalcitrant must pay high compensatory damages to wife with whom he has not cohabited since 2002. 'Refusing to grant a get violates the values protected by Israel’s Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom,' says judge.

The Rishon Lezion Family Court recently awarded compensation in the amount of NIS 680,000 (about $182,850) to a woman whose husband has chained her to an unwanted marriage for years, and even today still refuses to divorce her.

In a lawsuit filed on her behalf in 2002 with the Rabbinic Court, the wife, Hannah (not her real name), cited her husband’s extreme physical abuse and abandonment as the reason she sought a divorce.

The husband would punch her, slam her head against the wall and the furniture, and throw objects at her. In addition, he cursed and swore at her and the children. He moved out of the marital bed in 1999 and moved out of their home in 2002.

A 2003 Rabbinic Court ruling “recommended” rather than “mandated” the giving of the get (religious divorce). It claimed that Hannah had failed to conclusively prove her husband’s abusive behavior. Still, because she felt repulsed by her husband, it would be a mitzvah (good deed) for her husband to divorce her.

Hannah’s husband, however, stood fast in his refusal to grant the get. This led to a new rabbinic court ruling in 2004 which then “mandated” his giving of the get.

The ruling read, “It is clear that this man’s only motive for continuing to deny his wife a get is revenge and all he wants is to keep her trapped in this marriage. We will not be a party to these actions, and have therefore altered the original decision and now 'mandate' the giving of the get."

Plot thickens

Heartened by the 2004 Rabbinic Court decision, Hannah looked forward to starting a new life. Yet, that was not to happen.

Changing tactics, in 2005, Hannah’s husband approached the Rabbinic Court with a new request. He wanted conditions attached to the get. The court agreed and put the 2004“mandate” decision on hold until it heard the husband’s claim, classifying the husband as “not recalcitrant.”

In 2006, following Hannah’s consent to transfer all property issues to the rabbinical court’s jurisdiction, the court again supported Hannah’s position and gave her husband two weeks to grant a get. But, the husband still refused, making additional demands; this time, regarding child support and his wife’s pension [i.e. alimony].

In 2007, relating to the husband’s embedded stance, the Rabbinic Court ruled for a second time that the husband is “mandated” to give his wife a get.

"This is a case of entrenched recalcitrance… the Rabbinic Court supports the position of the wife… It is clear that the husband’s intention is to use the divorce as a bargaining chip... We will not allow ourselves to be a party to these actions. Therefore, we rule that the husband is ‘mandated’ to give his wife a get.”

When the get was still not forthcoming, the Rabbinic Court imposed sanctions on the husband, which also had little effect.

Having been separated from her husband for eight years and frustrated by five futile years of litigation in the rabbinic courts, Hannah had little faith in the system and decided to turn to the Center for Women’s Justice (CWJ) for help.

Yifat Frankenberg, a CWJ attorney, filed a tort claim in family court on Hannah’s behalf, suing Hannah’s husband for compensatory damages.

The Rabbinic Court was extremely unhappy with this turn of events, to say the least. Incensed by this challenge to their authority, in 2009, the court ruled it would only authorize a get if Hannah dropped the tort claim. Otherwise, they would declare any get given a get meuseh (a “coerced” get – a get must be given of the husband’s free will in order for it to be valid).

After over nine years and countless deliberations in the Rabbinic Court, Hannah was in the same place she started in 2002. Although she had received two rulings in her favor stipulating that the husband is mandated to give her a get, both were rescinded – one due to the husband’s insistence on conditioning the get on property and monetary issues and the second because of Hannah’s unwillingness to drop the civil damage suit.

In short – zero progress.

Honorable justice

The civil courts on the other hand, in a relatively short time, delivered a decisive judgment for Hannah.

Presiding Judge Esther Stein ruled that the plaintiff (i.e., Hannah) was in the right and for her suffering and anguish all these years, she is due hundreds of thousands of shekels in compensation.

The Court held that "refusal to divorce constitutes a violation of the values protected by the ‘Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom,’ which includes: freedom of choice, the right to self-fulfillment, the right to dignity and equal rights."

Judge Stein added that in this particular case, the husband is morally bound to divorce his wife, given the rabbinic mandates which were only cancelled due to external reasons.

Hanna may never receive her get. But now, she and her six children have a secure roof over their head as her husband’s equity interest in their apartment will be transferred to Hannah’s name. There are honorable judges in Israel after all.

Rabbinic courts: Lift the anchor!

Rabbinic judges claim women who refuse to compromise on their financial rights 'anchor themselves' to unwanted marriages, or turn themselves into agunot. Meanwhile, family courts have ruled that husbands should be held financially accountable for their recalcitrance. Let public decide

A man who refused to give his wife a get for 10 years asked a rabbinic court to determine if he is should be considered a “recalcitrant husband” or not. He hoped to present the determination to the Family Courts where his wife was suing him for damages that had ensued as a result of his behavior.

However, the Rabbinic Court surprisingly turned matters on their head by ruling that the wife was “anchoring herself” to the marriage.

The judges even suggested that “perhaps the woman will wake up from her coma and from her stubbornness and understand that she is the recalcitrant one"—since she refuses to compromise with her husband on division of property.

In the 14-page decision, the judges "forgot" to mention that the parties are waiting for a judgment from the family courts regarding division of property, and instead determined that “the husband is not anchoring his wife”.

The text of the ruling reveals that there is nothing less than a "world war" going on between the Rabbinic Courts and the Family Courts regarding the definition of recalcitrance. Rabbi Yanai, for example, writes: “Unfortunately, as damage claims become more widespread, we are reverting to the ‘dark ages’ of power struggles over jurisdiction, only this time, the battle takes a particularly harsh form…”

“We are dealing here with a struggle over who is the ruling authority and over the very force and legitimacy of any decision that was given, or will be given, by the Rabbinic Court on the issue of divorce. To our great dismay, this is not just a little battle but a real world war.

"From the perspective of pure Halacha, we are dealing with some of the most essential and important issues in the laws of personal status – the validity of the get and the threat of mamzer (bastards). If this difficult phenomenon of damage claims spreads without clear boundaries, in the end, who knows what will happen?”

Rabbi Pardes has called on the courts to stop damage claims: “In this context, the Rabbinic Court urges, in all sincerity, that those in position of authority in the Israeli legal system to refrain from dealing with damage claims. Though their objective is to benefit the parties who bring these suits, in practice it causes them direct harm and immeasurable grief. These claims will bring divorce cases to a dead end, and it is these cases that are the cause of years of recalcitrance.”

And what do family courts say?

On the other side is the ruling recently handed down by the Tel Aviv District Court that upheld the verdict of a Family Court awarding NIS 700,000 (about $198,000) in damages from a man who anchored his wife for over 10 years.

In this ruling, the judges wrote: “We are looking at a woman who was held captive by the appellant, a man who has no good reason to give for the prison that he has built for his wife except for the fact that she once agreed to marry him…

"The appellant deprives and continues to deprive his wife of her happiness, deprives and continues to deprive her of establishing a new family, and, more specifically, he deprives and continues to deprive her of having children….This situation described is immoral and offends goes against the Basic Law of Human Dignity and Freedom.”

In other words, the Rabbinic Court believes that women anchor themselves (because they do not agree to the “compromise” proposed by the husbands), and that the process of suing for damages exacerbates this “anchoring.”

We believe that the husband who refuses to give his wife a get is the one anchoring his wife, and that the Rabbinc Courts who legitimize the husband’s recalcitrance are the ones causing women to remain imprisoned.

Let the public decide.