Husband, adulterous wife and a photo
Man who photographed his wife in intimate position with another man, presents findings to Rabbinical Court which approves his request for divorce. However, High Court of Justice disqualifies evidence, claiming it constitutes invasion of wife's privacy
The wife appealed the High Rabbinical Court, but was denied. The rabbinical judges ruled that the husband had the right to document the antics of his unfaithful wife, who in turn decided to appeal the High Court of Justice. The High Court justices discussed the issue and decided to disqualify the photographic evidence, claiming that the husband had invaded his wife's privacy which breaks the privacy law.
"The invasion of privacy in this case is severe," wrote former Chief Justice, Aharon Barak. "It's hard to think of a more severe invasion of a person's privacy than a group of people breaking into a house to take pictures of intimate situations against the tenants' will."
'There's no privacy among couples'
I was intrigued by a legal argument between judge Barak and Rabbi Shlomo Dichovsky, a highly acclaimed judge serving in the High Rabbinical Court. This argument is more than just legal; it sheds light on the differences between the religious and secular points of view regarding the marital institution. The issue in question is interesting: Does marriage nullify the privacy of each party?
Rabbi Dichovsky wrote that the privacy law does not apply to the relationship between married couples.
"It would be appropriate to say there is no concept of individual privacy among married couples. This is the natural course of married life, which makes the intimacy of each joint intimacy."
The justice added that "married couples are linked to each other in body and soul, until they become a single flesh. Isn't the hand entitled to know how the leg is feeling?"
Everyone needs personal space
Judge Barak, however rejects this approach. "Marriage does not nullify the right of the parties to privacy from each other," he maintains. Marriage does not constitute agreement to relinquish the right to privacy. Every person is entitled to space where he or she can be themselves. This space moves with the person. The scope of this space derives from the need to protect the individual's autonomy."
The justice added that the case in point constitutes a sever invasion of privacy – breaking in to a home without consent while the tenants are in a delicate situation. Therefore, the photographs are disqualified for use as evidence.
Moreover, President Barak maintained that even the husband's testimony of what he saw is disqualified, as it constitutes illegal entry while invading an individual's right to privacy.
Without investigator's photographs
The case was returned to the regional Rabbinical Court in order to reexamine the husband's divorce claim. This time, the case was reviewed according to an order by the High Court, without the judges relating to the photographs or hearing the husband's testimony of what he had witnessed when entering the house.
The Rabbinical Court repeated its verdict according to which the woman must divorce. The arbitrators premised their decision on a series of arguments including the fact that the couple was not interested in Shlom Bait, "and that the struggle is aimed at achieving power which in itself cannot prevent the divorce."
An additional argument given by the court states that "we are clearly facing an ugly act." An ugly act is a term used in Jewish halachic law, which means that according to the evidence presented to the court, it can be ascertained that the woman betrayed her husband, even though there is no clear cut evidence (such as photographs or witnesses).
