Question:

Only two dayanim were present at the last hearing at the rabbinical court concerning proceedings my wife brought against me . They asked me if I minded only two of them being there, explaining that the other one was ill. I was not represented by a lawyer and didn’t know what to say . I said I didn’t mind. They ordered me to pay my wife temporary maintenance and another hearing was set for a few months time. Afterwards I wondered if I should have objected . What is the legal position ?

Answer:

According to The Dayanim Law of 1955 a rabbinical court panel should consist of three judges, except for issues where there is no dispute (e.g. authorisation of an agreement). A panel with fewer than three judges has no jurisdiction to make decisions or judgments which are void ab initio (from the beginning).

It makes no difference if a party consents to a hearing being held before fewer than three judges when asked, or whether it takes place without him being asked. Nor does it matter if a party is aware that it is illegal for fewer than three judges to be on the panel. In any case if a panel of fewer than three dayanim makes a decision on a disputed issue it lacked jurisdiction to do so and the decision is invalid.

To challenge this a party has a choice of two options;the first is to appeal to the Greater Rabbinical Court against the decision, and the second is to petition to the Supreme Court of Justice – both actions being based on the argument that the panel lacked jurisdiction to make the decision which should be cancelled.

Question:

What happens if someone refuses to co-operate with proceedings at the rabbinical court, objecting to the venue, and wants a civil one ?

Answer:

Where a defendant objects to a rabbinical court hearing a matter over which it lacks exclusive jurisdiction, and can only deal with the case by mutual consent, then it can give the plaintiff a ‘refusal document’ which entitles him to bring legal action against the former in a civil court. The document can also be used to pressurize the defendant into agreeing to the rabbinical court hearing the matter after all.

Usually rabbinical courts only issue refusal documents concerning issues which are not in their jurisdiction according to the Rabbinical Courts’ Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Act of 1953.

My husband and I have separated. He moved back to his home-town and filed for divorce at the local rabbinical court there where a relative of his works. I am worried about this because of his connections. Can another rabbinical court hear our case ?

Answer:

Yes, but you can object to a particular district court having jurisdiction over a plea filed by her husband within 30 days of receiving it. Under the Rabbinical Court Regulations a plea between spouses is to be made at the district rabbinical court where they lived, or last lived together. However, they can agree on another district rabbinical court having jurisdiction, although that court can still refuse to hear the plea, or if one party files, and the other objects, as you are advised.

Question:

My husband and I are fighting one another in divorce proceedings at the rabbinical court. I am represented by a rabbinical pleader. When we meet to discuss the tactics everything is fine but when we get into the courtroom he seems to ignore everything we agreed upon and shuts me up if I try and interrupt and guide him back to the agreed course. I am considering hiring someone else, but complaining anyway. Will anyone address my complaints

Answer:

Yes, they should do. According to the 1999 Rabbinical Pleaders’ ( Procedure at Disciplinary Courts) Rules a rabbinical disciplinary court will deal with complaints like your sand decide whether a particular complaint you make against a rabbinical pleader is justified, and what disciplinary action, if necessary, should be taken.

Must the same judges be on the panel of all hearings at the rabbinical court ?

Answer:

Yes, and if not, this forms a basis for the cancellation of the judgment, so ruled the Supreme Court of Justice in 2004. It cancelled a judgment given by Petach Tikva Rabbinical Court by a panel of judges which started to hear the evidence in a case, and where the panel was which changed during the course of the hearings.

It was held that where there is a panel of three rabbinical court judges throughout all the hearings, the panel that gives the judgment must have sat at every hearing in connection with the legal basis of the plea. Each hearing must take place before the same three religious judges. Changing the make-up of the panel creates a fault in the functionary jurisdiction of the rabbinical court, and any judgment made by the panel is by its essence cancelled, because it lacks jurisdiction.

How many judges are needed to decide whether the rabbinical court has jurisdiction to hear a particular subject which is allegedly bound to a divorce plea ?

Answer:

One rabbinical court judge is sufficient. The Greater Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem rejected an appeal against a decision made by the district rabbinical court which held it had jurisdiction to deal with a subject because it was bound to the divorce plea. It was held by the appeal court that a decision on jurisdiction is a “intermediate decision” which does not complete the hearing on the issue, or begin it, and can be given by one rabbinical court judge alone.

Question:

I filed my wife for divorce at the rabbinical court. I included the division of marital property in my divorce plea there as I heard this would be to my advantage. However, my wife claims that the family court should have jurisdiction over this, as I did not bind the property issue to my divorce plea properly . She said I didn't give sufficient information , but I referred to an agreement we made about our assets before we married , and therefore I did not 'bind' or include property in my divorce plea at the rabbinate . What's the situation ?

Answer:

The Greater Rabbinical (appeal) Court summarized the situation in February 2007. It said that where the divorce plea is genuinely filed but the husband does not give full details of the property it, as is normally required, if he refers to a property relations agreement between the parties, where each side's rights and obligations are clearly stated, then the issue of property is correctly bound, and the rabbinical court has jurisdiction over the issue. Deliberately hiding or destroying information would, however, affect legitimate binding of the property issue, but where this is not the case, and the information is listed in an appendix to the plea, such as an agreement between the parties, then this is sufficient to bind the property issue to the divorce plea, and secure jurisdiction at the rabbinical court