The Tel Aviv Rabbinical Court ordered a man to divorce his wife and pay her NIS 72,000 ($22,800), the full amount of the ketubah, after ruling that his continued refusal to have additional children justified both divorce and financial liability.
The ruling was handed down despite the husband’s claims that he sought reconciliation, supported marital reconciliation and had ultimately agreed to have another child. The judges determined that his belated consent did not reflect sincere intent.
The judges ruled that the husband was deeply interested in his wife, but not in procreation, rather in satisfying his personal needs. They added that the husband lacks understanding and emotional awareness of the essence of married life, and fails to grasp that a marital pattern which deliberately prevents a woman from bearing children has no durability and is destined to fail.
"To prevent the husband’s suffering from becoming a father to several children, and to prevent the suffering of a woman who wishes to be ‘mother of many children,’ the couple must separate,” the ruling stated. “Each should build a family according to his or her worldview and desires. The husband must immediately release the woman to her path, and he shall go his own way.”
The couple married several years ago and has one child. The woman filed for divorce and payment of the ketubah, arguing that her husband refused to have additional children. She claimed he avoided marital relations after she removed an intrauterine device and later engaged in intercourse while deliberately preventing pregnancy. She said his conduct caused her emotional pain and humiliation.
The woman also stressed that her husband’s opposition to having more children was not temporary but stemmed from a fundamental worldview in which he viewed children as a burden and an unnecessary financial strain.
The husband denied the allegations, requested marital reconciliation and opposed divorce. He argued that under Jewish law, having one child was sufficient, said he loved his wife and wanted to rehabilitate the relationship, and expressed willingness to undergo couples therapy. He later agreed to have another child, stating that any further children should be planned by mutual consent and under appropriate financial conditions.
He rejected the woman’s claims that he had withheld marital relations, saying their intimate life was normal and that his desire for relations was greater than hers. He also denied allegations that he deliberately prevented conception.
The court accepted the woman’s claims, citing the husband’s conduct during testimony as evidence that he did not truly wish to have more children. “This behavior constitutes abuse of a woman who loved him and sought to express that love through bringing another child into the world,” the judges ruled.
The decision further stated that even if the husband now expressed forced consent to have another child, whether due to a worldview or psychological difficulties, the consequences for the woman and especially for the child would be self-evident. The court therefore concluded that the man was categorically unfit to father additional children.
Attorney Daniel Friedenberg of the Hoffman & Friedenberg law firm, who specializes in family and inheritance law and was not involved in the case, said the ruling set an important precedent. He noted that a prolonged refusal to have children based on worldview may constitute grounds for divorce and full payment of the ketubah, even if the husband later formally agrees under legal pressure.
The court ruled that a belated consent, which does not stem from genuine inner will but from the pressure of legal proceedings, does not remedy the prolonged violation of a woman’s right to marital life open to procreation, nor does it serve the best interests of future children. In doing so, the court favored the substance of marriage and authentic parental intent over declarative or technical claims of marital reconciliation.