The plaintiff's arguments regarding the exclusion of the Property Relations Law in the marriage contract.
- Before the parties married, they always talked about their future together, and the defendant never conditioned their marriage on any waiver on her future rights or on any other terms.
- It was never explained to her when she signed the marriage contract that she was giving up her future rights that they would accumulate together during their life together.
- The marriage contract signing ceremony is a limited ceremony held at the bride's home by a Sharia marriage registrar, who addresses the parties with short questions such as "Do you agree to marry this man", the bride answers "yes" and signs, while it can be seen from the photos attached by the defendant himself that the signing was made while standing and not sitting.
- The affidavit of the defendant's sister does not prove anything, since at the time she signed the marriage contract she was not "attached to her" as she put it, and this too can be seen in the photograph that the defendant himself attached to his affidavit, a picture that proves exactly the opposite.
- The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916Therefore, the defendant's arguments that the law that applies to the property relations between the parties is Sharia law should be rejected because it contradicts public regulations, it contains a fundamental violation of legal rights such as: the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty, the Equal Rights of Women Law, and this in light of the fact that the defendant did not specify which property rights he relied on in Sharia law in order to be able to examine them against the constitutional rights.
12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)
- The plaintiff further claims that she did not receive any explanation from the Registrar of Marriages regarding the exclusion of the Property Relations Law, an explanation which according to the law should have been explained to her and received her explicit consent, consent which was never given by her, and therefore the defendant's claims regarding the existence of a stipulation in the marriage contract that excludes the arrangement set forth in the Property Relations between Spouses Law should be rejected. 5733 - 1973, and to determine that this law applies to the parties.
The Plaintiff's Claims for the Application of the Property Relations and Resource Balance Law
- At the beginning of the parties' marriage, she worked as... And the defendant worked as... In the ** municipality, when at his request she moved to live with him in a kibbutz ** in ** Haaretz in view of his work there, even though all their family members live in the north of the country.
- Over the years they built their home in the settlement ** in the north of the country, when the defendant continued his work in the south of the country, and on Mondays and Wednesdays of the week he stayed overnight in the south, while the rest of the week he would come to their home in the north of the country late to sleep only and would leave early the next morning for work.
- While the defendant developed personally and professionally and accumulated many social, financial and pension rights, she was the one who bore the full burden of caring for the family, raising the children and maintaining the house, alongside working outside the home when she had to deal with a great deal of responsibility and a severe emotional burden from which the defendant disavowed, while during the life of the marriage the defendant clarified to her that her income was a condition for the continuation of their joint marriage.
- The actuary's opinion given in the case testifies to significant differences in earnings and rights that exist between the parties in favor of the defendant, and this constitutes unequivocal proof that while it focused on the space of the house, the defendant was able to increase his earning capacity while it was left behind without a profession or employment.
- Throughout their marriage, the parties managed a joint property regime of family expenses, shopping, raising children, vacations, entertainment, etc., while they maintained a joint account to which their salaries and various allowances were deposited, and since 2014 they have begun to manage separate bank accounts due to incessant financial disputes between them.
- Therefore, the plaintiff petitions in her lawsuit and asks the court to order the division of the resources between the parties at a ratio of 70% for her and 30% for the defendant, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the huge gap that exists between them in the "economic horizon" of each of them.
Copied from Nevo