Retirement Benefits – Marital Property

Question :

I am considering divorce. My husband retired from the police last year and gets a generous monthly pension. He was a policeman for five years before I met him and then worked his way up within the ranks during the 20 years he was in the force after we got married. Will I be entitled to any of his pension if we divorce ?

Answer:

Yes. In principle you would be entitled to half of the monthly pension relating to the period in which your husband worked for the police force – from the time you married until you split up or divorced. You would not be entitled to any pension which was due to your husband from his first five years in the police force – as this related to the time before you were married and before there was any marital partnership between them, so that pension relating to this period is not marital or joint property.

Question :

I am at a crossroad in my life and am on the verge of opting for divorce. I know that a wife who divorces often gets some of her husband’s pension. Does it work the other way round ? I have worked as a civil servant for many years and am due to retire soon. Will my husband be entitled to some of my pension ?

Answer:

Yes. Each spouse – whether male or female – is in principle entitled to half of the other spouse’s pension rights relating to the period when they lived together as a married couple

Question:

My wife and I are about to divorce. She has been a senior teacher for many years and is due to retire soon. She let her entitlement to professional development build up into a large fund . Would I have any rights to this as well as her pension if we divorce ?

Answer:

The law recognises two types of employment-related rights or benefits that are marital assets to which both spouses have equal rights, although they are only in one of their names. The first type are basically “retirement/leaving assets” – such as pension funds or severance pay. The second type are “career assets” related to the acquirement of further knowledge / qualifications and to increased earning capability.

Many employees – teachers particularly – have the opportunity to study and gain further qualifications at the expense of their employer. If they chose not to exercise this right the equivalent cost accumulates in a professional development fund.

A husband is entitled to half of the professional development fund which his wife built up during their married life together. He is not entitled to that which built up before they were married – or after they separate. A spouse’s right to a professional development fund is based on legal principles of equity or fairness. It is related to the principle that the other spouse is entitled to compensation for the advancement of the other’s ‘human capital’ and earning power, which will be of benefit after they separate or divorce.

Question:

Does a spouse have rights in the other spouse’s ‘career property’ and professional reputation ?

Answer:

Yes, according to a judgment by Tel Aviv District Court, which rejected an appeal against the family court’s ruling, and held that “career property” and professional reputation are property rights. When an investment in that property (in this case an accountant’s office) is made during the course of the marriage, the assumption of marital partnership should apply. This does not depend on whether the other spouse participated in the business. Accordingly, the setting of future payments from one spouse to another (not as maintenance) for the rest of his life, is a result of the joint property acquired by the career person during the marriage.

Question:

My husband and I are divorcing. He has hardly taken holiday from work over the last few years and I know he was thinking of getting a sizeable amount of money for this instead and leaving the company to set up his own business . If we divorce, am I entitled to any of this ?

Answer:

Yes ! Employment – related benefits either spouse has from their work are regarded as marital or joint property. Untaken holiday is a marital asset along with the more familiar ones like pension rights and redundancy pay. In principle a wife is entitled to half of the equivalent, updated value of accumulated untaken holiday relating to the period they lived together as a married couple.

The Supreme court has recognised rights to holiday leave as a marital asset for a number of years. A particular aspect of the subject – the principle of good faith when a husband decides whether to actually use up the holiday entitlement – was considered by the Tel Aviv Family Court in July 2001. Holiday leave accumulated over a number of years is normally taken when an employee leaves the company – and is separate from annual holiday leave.

In this case the wife – who had married in 1972 -had asked for a declaratory judgment regarding her share of various employment-related benefits in her husband’s name. The court said that the husband had intended to use up all of his accumulated holiday before he left the company. This was not allowed, however, as it did not represent an exercise of his rights in good faith. His plan was spiteful and would jeopardize the wife’s rights, it said.

The court held that the wife was entitled to half the husband’s holiday days that had accrued during their marriage up until their separation and that she would receive half of their equivalent, updated value when he left the company or retired from it.

The husband could take additional holiday time off if he wished – but from other holiday due to him from the period after they separated, which was not joint property, but only his, it added.

Question:

Does a woman who lives with a married man in the process of divorce, without any agreement between them, and subsequently marries him, have a right to work-related benefits he accrued during the time they cohabited ?

Answer:

Only if she can prove there was an intention for a partnership in property during the years they cohabited. Cohabitation itself is insufficient. These points were stressed by the Supreme Court of Justice in December 2006 when it rejected a petition by a woman against decisions of both Tel Aviv District Rabbinical Court and the Greater Rabbinical Appeal Court denying her a share in the work –related benefits of the man she lived with, and later married and divorced , during the period they lived together before marrying. During this time he was still married .

In its judgment the Supreme Court of Justice stressed that the rabbinical courts had held that not only had the woman failed to bring evidence to prove that there was an intention for financial partnership during this period, but that on the contrary what evidence was available pointed to the opposite. The parties had only opened a joint account after they married and the petitioner had even claimed during the proceedings that he had given up his financial rights to his first wife !

Question:

Is money a spouse gets as part of an early retirement deal joint property to be shared with the other spouse ?

Answer:

Not according to Beersheva Family Court which held in 2003 that monthly payments that a husband received until he reached retirement age as part of an early retirement agreement were not joint property to be shared with his wife.

Question:

Divorce is on the cards. My husband and I have already separated and I do not see us patching up our marriage, though I can see him dragging out legal proceedings and it taking ages for me to actually get divorced. He is near retirement. I presume I will be entitled to some pension – but will my entitlement be affected by our separation ?

Answer:

Yes ! In principle you would be entitled to half of the monthly pension relating to the period in which her husband worked during the time you lived together as a married couple. If you actually separate , this means up until the time of separation even though they are not yet divorced. Thus you will not be entitled to pension related to the period after you split up – as there is no marital partnership over this time .

Timing of Division of Pension Rights

Question:

Answer:

A distinction must be made between the time of a decision to divide up pension rights which is likely to be made by a civil or religious court before or close to the divorce and between the time for the actualisation of the pension rights, that is when the actual money is obtained and shared between the parties. The date for the actualisation of the pension rights is a future date. In principle, realisation will take place when the rights mature because up until that time the scope and length of those rights will not be clear. In other words only when the person stops working can they be calculated properly.

Question :

My husband and I are divorcing. There is no dispute between us about me being entitled to half of his pension rights relating to the period of our marriage. I just do not want to have to wait until he retires to get the money. Is there any way of me ‘cashing in’ my rights early ?

Answer:

Yes – if your husband agrees on this, too ! It is possible to bring forward the time for the actual division of partnership in the pension rights, which are actually future rights which mature later. This can only be done by way of a written agreement between the parties and of an estimation of the capital value of those rights within the framework of the equalisation of the spouses’s property. The capitalisation of a future financial right is actually carried out by a mathematical formula by an economist or actuary.

Question:

Where a husband’s pension rights are balanced out between him and his wife as part of a plea to divide marital property will she continue to get her part of them after he dies ?

Answer:

Yes ! If it is agreed between a couple that the wife is entitled to half of her husband’s pension rights and on capitalisation of this, then there is nothing to prevent an estimation of this which takes into account her right to receive some of her husband’s pension after his death, based on the laws of equity.

When ruling on this issue , the Tel Aviv Family Court held in 2001 that once property like a pension is recognised as being joint, the wife’s compensation must be given on the basis of all the rights associated with that property, including those after death.

Question :

I divorced my husband several years ago . He took early retirement after being a civil servant for many years. I have been receiving part of his pension every month. Recently he was diagnosed as having cancer and is not expected to live much longer. If he dies will my rights to his pension be affected ?

Answer:

Yes. A woman who divorces and receives part of her husband’s pension will lose it when he dies. This is because her rights to his pension derive from his rights which cease on his death. This situation differs from where a wife

Opts to capitalize her husband's pension rights as part of equalization of marital assets upon divorce, as explained above.

Question:

I receive a private pension relating to my late husband from my first marriage. I remarried after he died and am now considering divorce. Will my current husband be entitled to a part of this pension if we divorce ?

Answer:

No. Property and financial rights which were acquired prior to the current marriage do not form part of the couple’s common-property to be divided up. They remain the wife’s property and her husband has no rights in this should they divorce.

Question:

My wife and I married in 1980 and I am now considering divorce. I am due to take early retirement from the army in two years time and get a generous pension and other benefits after lengthy service there. My wife will try to squeeze me financially for every last shekel . I want to be assured of a steady monthly sum .Is she entitled to any of these payments related to my work and, if so, can I protect myself ?

Answer:

Firstly, your wife is entitled to some of these rights as they are deemed common property subject to “equalization” between a husband and wife when they divorce, according to the Spouses’ Property Relations Law of 1973, which applies to couples who married in or after 1974.

In order to stop your wife getting these rights you will need her to agree to give up her rights to them - explicitly in writing and this agreement must receive court approval as stated in the act. It is not sufficient to ignore reference to them in any settlement you make.

Question:

My best friend has told me that she is now receiving some of her “ex’s” pension rights. I got married in 1975 and divorced a few years ago. I cannot remember anything about pensions being in our divorce agreement. Am I also entitled to my “ex’s” pension rights ?

Answer:

In principle pension rights are joint or common property subject to “equalization” between married couples when they divorce according to the Spouses’ Property Relations Law of 1973 which applies to couples marrying from 1974 onwards.

If a divorce agreement was silent on the subject this does not mean that the wife has no rights regarding pension. In principle, she would be entitled to part of her ex’s pension rights relating to the period they were together. To give up her entitlements she would have had to explicitly agree to do so in writing and that agreement would have had to have court approval as stated in the act.

Question:

Are a divorcee’s rights to her ex-husband’s pension affected if he takes a second job after retiring ?

Answer:

In principle they should not be affected but if in practice they are harmed due to increased taxation imposed because of the ex-husband’s second job then the family court can make an order to correct this .

In June 2002 the Tel Aviv family court dealt with a plea from an ex-wife for a declaratory judgment regarding her rights to her ex-husband’s pension . According to an earlier judgment taking into account the years he had served in the army before they married, she had been entitled to 40% of his net monthly army pension. A few years after his retirement the ex-husband took another job which meant he entered a higher taxation bracket – adversely affected the sum reaching the ex-wife. The court held that the ex-wife’s rights should not be jeopardised by her ex-husband’s decision to take on another job – and gave an order to the army’s wages department to transfer to transfer 40% of the net pension after taxation according to the original rate for a single salary.

Question:

After being married for over 20 years I divorced. As part of the division of our marital property it was held that my wife was entitled to half of my pension rights from work. I took early retirement and after a short break decided to take another job. My ex-wife claims that this has affected her rights to my pension from my first job as more was deducted in tax as I entered a higher taxation bracket. I understand that she is going to bring legal action to ensure her rights . Is she justified ?

Answer:

Yes. In principle an ex-wife’s rights to her ex-husband’s pension should not be adversely affected if he takes another job after retirement. If this happens in practice and she receives less because of different taxation imposed she is entitled to apply to the family court for a declaratory judgment setting out her rights to her ex-husband’s pension. It can give orders to the wage department at her ex-husband’s first place of employment about taxation and also give instructions so that the ex-wife is paid any amounts she should have received but did not .

Question :

I got married young, in the 1960's. My husband is quite a bit older than me and nearing retirement. We have grown apart and I am considering ending our marriage. Am I entitled to part of his pension – are my rights dependent on staying or leaving him ?

Answer:

No ! A woman who marries before 1974 is entitled to half of her husband’s pension rights relating to their married life together . The legal basis for these rights is the principle of marital partnership which governs her property relations with her husband. These rights are property rights, and receive the protection of the Basic Law: Human Dignity & Freedom Act . A wife who married before 1974 is entitled to exercise her property rights at any time and apply for a declaratory judgment setting them out. She does not have to wait until she divorces before she can exercise them. She can exercise them whether she is married and living with her husband, married and separated or divorced, but they will stop growing upon separation or filing of a divorce plea.

Question :

Is there any connection between one spouse’s rights to the other’s pension and the date of their marriage ?

Answer:

Yes – but the differences are now disappearing, since amendments to legislation concerning spouses' property made in November 2008.

A spouse who marries before 1974 is entitled to exercise his/her rights to the other’s pension at any time during the marriage as they are property rights originating from the principles of marital partnership. They are not affected by the restrictions of the 1973 Spouses’ Property Relations’ Act which applies to couples marrying after 1974. This restricted the timing of the exercise of the rights to the other spouse’s pension to the end of the marriage . However,

Amendments made in November 2008 now allow rights in the other spouse's pension to be exercised before the marriage ends, in certain circumstances, thus blurring the difference.

Quesion:

My ex-husband was a civil servant all our married life. Our divorce agreement stated that I was entitled to half of his state pension from the time we married until we separated. After we divorced he went to live with his lover , the same woman he had been having an affair with during our marriage. A few months ago he died and both this woman and I claim we have rights to his pension. Who is likely to win ?

Answer:

This is unclear as there is likely to be a battle between his wife, based on her property rights as a spouse, and his common-law wife (live-in lover) or between his ex-wife and the beneficiary he named in the case of death. In either case what will determine the outcome will be the pension fund regulations.

Question:

I got divorced a few years ago. In my divorce agreement it said that I am entitled to half of the pension rights in my husband’s name for the period he worked during our marriage. After we divorced my husband re-married quite quickly. A few years later he died. I presume his widow gets money as his surviving relative by virtue of her status but I was given rights, as his ex-wife, in our divorce agreement. How can I actually get the money I am entitled to from his pension ?

Answer:

Where a couple divorce and the husband remarries and later dies, his ex-wife should file his estate to get her pension rights .

This is because according to the 1965 Inheritance Act pension and insurance policy funds are not included in the estate. It is likely that competition over rights will develop between the divorced wife and the widow . For example, if the first wife (the divorcee) was a beneficiary on an insurance fund/policy the widow may fight her for those rights – or vice versa.

Question:

If a wife gets maintenance from her husband will this be affected by anything due to her from his pension ?

Answer:

There is a connection between what a wife can get in the way of maintenance and work-related benefits from her husband. For example, where a husband gets a pension the amount of maintenance he pays his wife takes into account his income that derives from his pension.

This was seen clearly in a case decided by the Beersheva Family Court in August 2002 concerning a separated wife’s rights to her husband’s impending pension. It was held that once the husband started receiving his monthly pension, his wife would be entitled to half of the pension due to him for the period they lived together as a married couple – or to the maintenance set by her previously in court, but not to both.

Question:

 

I get maintenance from my husband. He has finished working for a company after many years of service. I know I am entitled to some of the compensation he is due to get. Will it affect the maintenance I receive now ?

Answer:

No. Maintenance is unaffected by a wife’s right to half of the compensation her husband is due to receive for the period they lived together as a married couple. This is in contrast with monthly pension payments which clash with monthly maintenance payments. Here a wife must choose which of the two she wants to receive.

This was made clear in a case decided by Beersheva Family Court in August 2002 where it was held that the wife was entitled to half of her husband’s compensation payments when he finished work whereas it held that once he started receiving his monthly pension, although she would be entitled to half of the pension due to him for the period they lived together as a married couple – she would have to choose between this or the maintenance set by her previously in court, and could not receive both.

Question:

Several years ago my wife and I separated. Before we divorced we went to court to settle what should be done with the apartment and maintenance. We came to an agreement about these and the court passed judgment authorising this. We split what money we had in the bank without further legal proceedings. Now, I have taken early retirement and my ‘ex’ now claims half of my pension and other benefits I am due to get from work. Does my ‘ex’ have any claim ?

Answer:

Yes – as Beersheva Family Court held in August 2002 that a woman in a similar situation had rights to half of her separated husband’s pension and other work-related benefits when he quit his managerial job. In this case the separated couple settled certain financial issues in an agreement relating to the apartment the wife owned before their marriage, renovations to it, plus maintenance and the financing of their son’s Bar Mitzvah by the husband cashing in one of his career advancement funds. Eight years later she filed for half of her husband’s work-related rights at the family court.

The Family Court found for the wife, holding that she was entitled to half of all her husband’s work-related rights, whether paid monthly or in a lump sum, for the period of their marriage up until their separation. After considering superior caselaw and the evidence before it, the court stressed that the agreement at the district court had not been a comprehensive settlement of all the couple’s finances and no mention had been made there of financial rights. It had ended the couple’s dispute over certain issues only. Accordingly the issue of work-related rights had been left open.

Limitation Re Claim To Deceased Husband’s Pension Rights

Case :

My husband died recently. We had been married for nearly years but had been living separately for some time. Am I entitled to part of his pension rights, and if so, is there a time limit within which I must act ?

Answer:

There is a legal assumption that pension and work related benefits of a spouse who married before 1974 are joint property according to the principle of marital partnership. A woman who married before 1974 but she had been separated from her husband for some time before he died will be entitled to half of his pension and work related benefits for the period they lived together as a married couple – that is up until their separation. According to the 1958 Statute of Limitations the period available for filing for these rights is seven years, beginning on the date the deceased passed away. Having said this delay in bringing legal action can be held , in extreme cases, to mean that the surviving spouse has given up claims to those rights.

Question:

If a couple are separated and one spouse dies, is the surviving spouse at risk of losing certain property rights if he or she did not act to realize them during the deceased’s lifetime ?

Answer:

Yes – unless the surviving spouse can prove that the delay was justified. In October 2002 the Tel Aviv Family Court considered the connection between a surviving spouse’s delay in bringing legal action and loss of his/her claim to property rights. In the above case the couple had been living separately for over 25 years and after the husband died the wife brought financial action against the executor of her deceased husband’s estate. Part of her plea was related to her right to half of the marital property through the legal assumption of marital partnership. The Court noted that the widow had not explained why she never acted to realize her rights during all the years and ‘accordingly it is likely that she should be regarded as having given up her claim’.

Supreme Court precedent from the nineties held that where a spouse had a reasonable opportunity to bring legal action to realize his/her rights to joint property under the principle of marital partnership and chose not to do so then he or she is regarded as having chosen to forego those rights.

Question :

I am a widower in my early eighties . Under a property relations agreement I made with a widow with whom I lived for many years each of us was to be entitled to the other’s pension rights as cohabitees upon the other’s death. Over a year ago, my common-law wife’s health deteriorated . Her family forced her move to an old people’s home saying I was too frail to look after her. I visited her almost daily but lost contact against my will as the family deliberately moved her from place to place to separate us , and pressurise her into altering her will in their favour. After she died I tried to claim my rights to her pension but was told by the pension fund that I did not qualify as her common-law widower under the fund’s terms as we had not lived together for the necessary period prior to her death. Is this true ?

Answer:

If a pension fund’s code states that the status of a common-law spouse is to be determined according to a court judgment then the surviving partner may be entitled to the deceased’s pension if a legal finding is obtained that states the couple’s status as common-law spouse continued despite the enforced separation against their will. In December 2002 The Tel Aviv Labour court held that a woman was entitled to the deceased’s pension rights as his surviving common-law wife even though they had been separated for a few years prior to his death – as this separation had been forced on them against their will by the deceased’s son following a deterioration in her health.

Question:

Can a woman who divorces and who is entitled to a share of her ex-husband’s army pension get it directly from the Israel Defence Forces rather than being dependent on his goodwill ?

Answer:

Yes. In November 2003 the I.D.F. lost its appeal against a June 2002 family court judgment ordering the I.D.F. to transfer half of an ex-husband’s pension relating to his employment during the couple’s marriage directly to his ex-wife. The District Court re-affirmed the ex-wife’s independent property rights in the pension and her entitlement to receive her share of the payment directly from the I.D.F.

In its appeal the army claimed that it could not transfer the ex-wife’s share of the pension directly to her because the I.D.F. Service Act explicitly states that a right to a pension cannot be transferred , mortgaged or frozen except for the payment of maintenance according to a judgment of the family or rabbinical court. However, the District Court rejected this argument and held: “ The property right of the ex-wife in her part of the pension is identical and equal to the property right of the ex-husband in the pension and accordingly there is no justification – or legal grounds – to discriminate against her by making her property right dependent on his goodwill.”

Question :

I was overgenerous to my ‘ex’ when we divorced, to avoid a fight which would boomerang on the children. I gave up my rights in the family home and transferred them to the children. Now, ten years later I see I was too weak. Although I get a good army pension I am now forced to get a job to survive financially. My ‘ex’ is grumbling that if I work it will affect her share of the pension as I will enter a higher taxation bracket. Is that so and could it be my sweet revenge ?

Answer:

No ! In a November 2003 appeal case the Tel Aviv District Court dealt with the effect of a retired forces man getting a job on his ex-wife’s right to a share of his monthly army pension relating to his employment with the Israeli Defence Forces during their marriage . It held that the ex-wife’s portion of the army pension should be taxed at the ex-husband’s taxation rate at the time of retirement, as if the pension was his first and only income.

“ The ex-husband can and is entitled to work in additional employment but he cannot as a result of this bring about a change in the amount of pension paid to him every month and hurt the part of the pension that is passed to the ex-wife. The ex-husband chose to tax the pension as a second salary and thereby increase his taxation percentage which hurt the right of the ex-wife … a deed such as this which borders on bad faith, should not be encouraged and must be prevented by preserving her recognized right, ” it held.

Question:

My husband is self-employed and gets a large proportion of his payment from customers in cash. I have been a government employee for many years, with considerable pension and other rights. We married nearly twenty years ago . At the beginning of our marriage he used to buy me presents now and then with it but stopped, although I know the practice of “black money” is still alive and kicking. I want to end our marriage, and ask the family court to divide up our property. Will the court take this into account ?

Answer:

According to the 1973 Spouses’ Property Relations’ Act, which applies to couples marrying on or after 1.1.74. , a husband does, in principle, have a right to half of his wife’s pension and employment rights relating to the period when they lived together as a married couple, on divorce . However, the act grants the court discretion to digress from this formula in exceptional circumstances, and if the wife can prove that the husband received income and that he cannot account for it, and she did not receive it, then it is possible that the court will reduce his share of her pension and work-related rights, or completely deny him a stake in this .

In June 2004 Jerusalem Family Court exercised its discretion , at the wife’s request, and denied the husband, a self-employed builder, any share in her pension and work related rights, for this reason.

“From the evidence, the bank print-outs and testimony of the plaintiff (the wife) accepted by me, it transpires that the defendant did receive cash payments for his business as a builder but did not deposit any of this income into the plaintiff’s account and didn’t even give her any money he earned..”, it held.

Question:

Is my husband entitled to a share in my monthly payments I receive from the German government for what I suffered during the Holocaust , if we split up/divorce ?

Answer:

No, these special payments (dubbed 'renta') are personal and not joint property, and would remain solely yours if there is a division of marital property.

Question:

Are tax refunds joint property ?

Answer:

They can be ! In a case decided by Kfar Saba Family Court in May 2006, involving a couple who had been married for many years, it was specifically mentioned that tax credits given to a couple are joint property, so long as partnership in property still exists. It does not matter for what reason the tax credit is given. Furthermore, it was held that if a tax credit is received after they split up – and their property partnership between them has ended – the tax credit or refund is still marital property if it relates to the period when they were still partners in property ownership. Accordingly, each party would be entitled to an equal share of the tax fund. Regarding tax refunds related to the period after partnership in property ended, these are not joint, even if the parties remain officially married, though separated, and remain the property of the particular individual.

Question:

Is child allowance money paid for by the National Insurance Institute which is invested in a savings fund joint property of the parents - to be divided when they divorce, or is it the minor's property ?

Answer:

If the savings fund is managed under the child's name or the child is listed as a beneficiary on it, then the money belongs to him and is his property. If, however, the money is invested in a savings account in the parents' name, or in one of their names, then it is joint property that can be divided up upon divorce.

Question:

My husband was killed while fighting in the First Lebanese war. I receive a special widow’s benefit from the army because of this. If I remarry will I lose the benefit ?

Answer:

Yes. According to the Perished Soldier’s Family (Benefits & Rehabilitation) Act of 1950 a widow who receives a benefit under the act will lose it on remarriage. Her right to benefits for her orphaned children will not be lost.

Question:

I was left a young widow when my husband was killed in the First Lebanese war. I remarried after a few years and lost my war widow’s benefit . I am now in the process of divorcing my husband. Will I be entitled to anything from the army again ?

Answer:

Yes. According to the Fallen Soldier’s Family (Benefits & Rehabilitation) Act of 1950 a widow who remarries but then divorces is entitled to receive the benefit she had before she married once again.

Question:

Both my husband and I have life insurance policies in which we are each listed as the sole beneficiary in each other’s policy. Our marriage is being stretched to its limits. I do not want to divorce but my husband is not sure, and meanwhile will not give up his lover. A friend worried me by saying that he could have crossed me off as the beneficiary and put his lover’s name instead. He has a heart condition and I do not want to pressurise him by asking him – but is this possible ?

Answer:

Yes. A person making a life insurance policy is free to name the beneficiary they wish to get the proceeds should they die- and is at liberty to change the beneficiary listed. Thus a husband can cross out his wife as a beneficiary and substitute her with his lover and/or his children , for example , instead without anyone knowing. Just as the husband may do this his wife is also at liberty to do the same.