They ask, I stood with my vakil,
A: I'm a little bit now, when you come to the wedding and you're a bride and you have to write it down, so I'll tell her
That you're a bride today, and you need to sit on the wedding chair, obviously. All things are clear,
There is nothing to explain.
Q: Okay, but you didn't explain, you didn't tell her, the law says that, the law is like that.
A: They never say.
Honorable Judge: Never, sir?
A: They don't say. "
- It was not proven by the defendant, on whom the burden of proof rests, that the marriage order explained to the plaintiff the terms of the contract. His testimony was inconsistent and unreliable, when in his affidavit he stated in paragraph 11 that "I understood from her afterwards at the end of the marriage contract signing ceremony, after she sat with me and after the invitees had dispersed, inter alia, that the marriage registrar explained to her the essence of the terms of the marriage agreement, including the applicability of Sharia law and the exclusion of Israeli law."
However, in his testimony he testified differently and claimed that he heard the explanations of the marriage registrar on the marriage contract to the plaintiff and added:
"It's a verbal ceremony, a filling ceremony is a sacred, literal ceremony, you have to read what is written, otherwise no one signs, he has to explain openly what she is going to sign even if you don't hear the details, he is obligated according to Halacha to read the text and explain to her what she is signing.." (See his testimony on p. 8, paras. 26-36 and p. 11, paras. 3-5 of the transcript of the hearing of May 12, 2025).
- The condition specified in the agreement, as a special condition, is a main and fundamental condition of the contract.
- Such a condition, which is so substantial, significant and sweeping, without any detail or reference to who made it, when it was agreed upon, whether it was explained to the parties, cannot stand and bind the parties, even if it was recorded in the marriage contract.
- The application of such a condition in the marriage contract requires the defendant or anyone who claims its validity to present evidence that is solid, strong, significant, clear and unequivocal, which in fact proves that there was indeed an explicit and voluntary consent by both parties to apply the condition to them, especially when it is a matter of consent that is ostensibly "less" beneficial to the plaintiff, and this has not been proven by the defendant.
- In addition, I also reached the conclusion that the defendant himself could not say when the condition was explained to the plaintiff and if it was explained at all, when it was also not proven from the testimony of the witnesses who were interrogated that the condition was indeed explained, when and in what manner.
- Moreover, the marriage order also claimed in his testimony that he did not explain to the parties the provisions of the contract, but that his job was to edit and prepare the form before the parties signed it.
- It should be remembered that the marriage contract is a contract for all intents and purposes, when there is an obligation to explain to the parties who sign it the terms and instructions written therein, including the witnesses to the contract, because otherwise and to the extent that this is not done (explanation to the parties), it is a defective and invalid contract that was signed without the parties understanding its meanings and implications, when the explanation related to the non-application of the Prenuptial Relations Law is of great importance.
- From my impression, as stated, the defendant gave an ununiform, incoherent and unreliable version with regard to the explanation of the condition that nullifies the application of the Property Relations Law to the parties and the application of Sharia law to them in its place, which ultimately led to my conclusion that the defendant did not prove that the parties agreed that the relationship between them would be governed by Sharia law and not by the Property Relations Law.
- The testimony of the defendant's sister, who testified in his favor and was also present at the signing of the marriage contract, and according to the defendant was the good friend of the plaintiff who was close to her throughout the signing of the marriage contract, did not leave a positive and credible impression on me when contradictions and various versions were discovered in her testimony, when at the beginning of her testimony she testified: (See p. 48, paras. 21-23 for the transcript of the hearing of May 12, 2025 )
" The Honorable Judge: Did the lady hear the conversation?