Court ruling8/29/2026

High Court of Justice 4149/21: Court Refused to Order Disclosure of Information About Former Husband’s Income

The High Court of Justice dismissed a woman’s petition challenging the Great Rabbinical Court’s decision of May 5, 2020. She had sought documents concerning the income of her former husband, a Bank of Israel retiree.

Key facts

•Proceeding: High Court of Justice 4149/21
•Court: Supreme Court of Israel sitting as the High Court of Justice
•Decision date: June 24, 2021
•Challenged decision: May 5, 2020
•Divorce agreement: 2000
•No costs were awarded

How the Dispute Arose

The parties signed a divorce agreement in 2000. About 19 years later, the petitioner asked the Regional Rabbinical Court to order the Bank of Israel to disclose information concerning her former husband’s income. Initially, on June 27, 2019, the Rabbinical Court granted the request, but on March 17, 2020, after a request was filed to broaden the order, it denied the request, ruling that the woman had not established her rights to the funds in question.

The Rabbinical Courts’ Decision

On May 5, 2020, the Great Rabbinical Court denied the petitioner’s request, after initially giving her an opportunity to clarify it. The Rabbinical Court noted that the parties’ agreement did not grant her rights to her former husband’s social benefits. In addition, she had previously sought and obtained similar orders in 2012, but that proceeding was closed by a decision issued in 2018.

Why the High Court of Justice Did Not Intervene

The High Court of Justice reiterated that it is not an appellate body for the religious courts. Intervention is possible only in exceptional cases: a blatant excess of jurisdiction, a violation of the principles of natural justice, a breach of statutory provisions, or the need to grant relief in the interests of justice. The Court held that the circumstances of the case did not fall within these exceptions.

Consideration by a Single Judge and the Delay

The Court noted that the application to the Great Rabbinical Court was not, in substance, an appeal, but rather a request for leave to appeal an interim decision denying the request for disclosure of documents. Accordingly, consideration by a single rabbinical judge, rather than by a panel, was lawful. The petitioner also did not explain why she filed the petition more than a year after the Great Rabbinical Court’s decision, and did not mention her previous applications.

Outcome of the Proceeding

The petition was dismissed without requesting a response from the opposing party. Because the respondents were not required to submit a response, the Court did not award costs.

What this means for you

A rabbinical court’s refusal to order disclosure of financial documents cannot automatically be challenged before the High Court of Justice as though it were an ordinary judicial error. Intervention by the High Court of Justice requires exceptional grounds, and an unexplained delay and a partial presentation of prior proceedings may create an additional obstacle to consideration of the petition.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings