Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.
Case: HCJ 5676/12, Plonit v Jerusalem District Rabbinic Court
April 12, 2015
Read High Court of Justice decision 5676-12
On or about 2010, the rabbinic courts made a note on a client’s divorce document that she was not permitted to marry Mr. X or to remarry her husband after their divorce. According to the rabbinic judges, our client was a “noefet,” an adulteress who is not allowed to remarry her husband or to marry her suspected paramour. The rabbinic judges made that determination based on allegations made by her husband at the time of the get ceremony, and without our client being present or able to deny those allegations.
In 2012, CWJ petitioned the Court on behalf of our client to declare that the rabbinic court had violated the rules of natural justice (due process) by making a decision that was unsubstantiated by any evidence. We also argued that the rabbinic court had no jurisdiction to collect such evidence as part of a no-fault divorce proceeding.
The Court wanted to remand the case for a full hearing before the rabbinic court. Our client refused and we asked the Court to make a decision of the merits.
In 2015, the Court insisted that rabbinic courts issue regulations that limit the natural justice (due process) violations that accompanied the practice of blacklisting noafot—adulteresses in rabbinic courts. The rabbinic courts agreed, drafted the regulations, and the Court dismissed the case, stating that CWJ could return to the Court to address the case on its merits if the regulations were insufficiently protecting our clients.