Maintenance / Child Support

The woman has the benefit of doubt and is presumed to be faithful towards her husband and retain her right to maintenance under Jewish law unless he manages to prove that she committed adultery.

If a wife tells her husband that she had sex with another man he is not automatically ‘forbidden’ to be with her according to Jewish law, unless it is established that she is telling the truth. She may be lying but be tricking him into agreeing to divorce. If she really has committed adultery then according to Jewish law the husband has to divorce her and is freed from paying her maintenance. She can be ordered to divorce her husband and if she refuses sanctions can be taken against her to enforce the rabbinical court’s Judgment . If she refuses to accept a ‘get’ the rabbinical court can even allow the husband to ‘take a second wife’.

Jewish law, and not the Israeli law of contracts which can give rise to a maintenance obligation where a Jewish couple marry in a civil ceremony abroad. This point was made very clear by the Supreme Court in December 2003 when it held that civil marriage abroad between a Jewish man and woman gave rise to a maintenance obligation arising from the law of contracts. Before this, a Jewish woman’s right to maintenance from her Jewish husband was dependent on the validity or status of her marriage in the eyes of Jewish law., mention was made of equality. This remains the case where the couple are Jewish but immigrated to Israel after first marrying in a civil ceremony abroad.

The Supreme Court said:  “ This(ruling) does not apply in the case of Jews who underwent a civil marriage where they were residents or citizens of a foreign country, and afterwards made ‘aliyah’ to Israel. In this situation the ruling in the Shmuel case applies, according to which the laws of maintenance are set according to Jewish law ”.

Until December 2003 the answer was yes. Where both parties were Jewish, the woman was entitled to maintenance from her husband if her marriage was valid according to Jewish law. A woman who married in a civil ceremony abroad was not entitled to maintenance from her husband even if they were both Jewish.

However, the answer is now no – even a Jewish woman who chooses to marry her Jewish husband in a civil ceremony is entitled to maintenance. A ground-breaking judgment of the Supreme Court severed the connection between status/validity of the marriage and the woman’s right to maintenance when it held that a Jewish woman who ‘ marries ‘ a Jewish man in a civil ceremony abroad is entitled to maintenance from him where they are citizens/residents of Israel.

Yes, in principle, according to a ground-breaking Supreme Court Precedent of December 2003. In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court Precedent panel of 3 judges unanimously accepted an appeal by a woman against a judgment by the District Court rejecting her right to maintenance from her husband whom she had married by ‘proxy’ in a civil marriage conducted in Paraguay. Both parties were Jewish. Until this precedent, a Jewish woman who married a Jewish man in a civil ceremony abroad was not entitled to maintenance because such a marriage was invalid according to Jewish law. This ruling, however, held that such a woman was entitled to maintenance – basing the obligation on contract law. When a man and a woman who are Jewish and both citizens/residents of Israel marry in a civil ceremony abroad, they enter into a contract which gives rise to mutual rights and obligations , including maintenance.

No! Although according to Jewish Law a husband has a duty to support his wife financially (pay her maintenance), if he does not do so and her parents invite her to move back into their home and support her, they have no legal claim against their daughter or their son-in-law for money they laid out on her during this period. This is because she did not ask her parents to support her financially and nor did her husband – they just volunteered . Therefore, if they tried to sue him for the money they spent supporting his wife their plea would probably be thrown out.

If a husband refuses to provide for his wife financially and a relative or someone else volunteers to support her without being asked, then that person has no legal grounds for legal action against either one of them. The fact that a husband has a duty under Jewish law to provide his wife with maintenance during their marriage does not confer upon someone who voluntarily supports her ( when he does not )a legal right to claim the money back from him. Furthermore, if the wife did not ask the person who gave her money to do so, then he is not legally entitled to getting it back from her. Using the same argument, he has no legal right to sue the husband for it if he or his wife did not request a loan.

However, if , for example, the husband leaves the home without providing his wife with any means of support, and she is forced to get a loan in lieu of maintenance which her husband has a duty to provide, then the situation may be different. The husband continues to have a legal obligation to support his wife and his maintenance debt grows all the time. Now, the person providing the loan, for example a relative or friend, probably has no legal right to claim the money loaned back directly from the husband. He/she would need to sue the wife for repayment of the loan and she in turn would be entitled to counter sue her husband for the loan taken out instead of the maintenance he should provide her with. In exceptional circumstances, and where the wife has no way of paying and cannot be located, the person providing the loan would be entitled to sue the husband directly.

According to Jewish law and to Israeli civil law – The Family Law Amendment (Maintenance) Act of 1959 – a husband has to pay his wife maintenance according to his personal/religious law, where applicable. When a maintenance plea is filed against a husband and the court will examine two parameters – (a) his actual earnings from his salary and (b) his earning potential.

Where the husband is temporarily out of work the court can still set maintenance according to his future earning potential.

An additional basis for his maintenance obligation in Jewish Law is the concept that a man’s wife ‘ ascends with him and does not descend.’ This means that if a wife has become accustomed to a certain standard of living and then her husband’s income drops she is not expected to suffer, and she is entitled to receive maintenance according to the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed.

According to Jewish law which is adopted by civil law a Jewish husband has a maintenance obligation towards his wife.

Traditionally and according to Jewish law, a wife who worked outside the home had to give her salary to her husband. Over the years caselaw gave a more modern interpretation to this and held that a wife could retain her salary rather than handing it over to her husband, as against his maintenance obligation towards her.

If a woman earns a low or modest salary and she can prove in court that her needs exceed it, then she can get supplementary maintenance from her husband to meet the gap. If, however, her salary is high, and her husband is unemployed , then he will almost certainly be exempt from paying her maintenance, and if he does work but earns less than her he will probably have to pay very little maintenance.

Yes – but only in special, exceptional circumstances. As a rule, under Jewish law a husband is obliged to support his wife. A few Supreme Court rulings in the early 90’s seemed to start setting a trend whereby a young wife who had been married for only a short time or a woman who had worked but then ceased to do so would only be entitled to minimum maintenance. However, this was the exception, not the rule.