The Rabbinical Court of Appeals has ruled that a significant age gap between spouses affects the distribution of pensions when they divorce. A divorce case was filed in the court in which the parties were married in 2000, after they had met during their service in the police, and the age difference between them was 17 years. The man retired in 2012, when he was 50, and since then he has been working as a criminal lawyer, while the woman continues to work as a policewoman. The couple divorced in 2015 and today the woman is 43 and the man is 60.
The Maternal Relations Act stipulates that upon the dissolution or expiration of the marriage, each of the spouses is entitled to half the value of all the spouses’ assets, including future pension rights. First, the judges of the Rabbinical Court ruled that, in general, the fact that there are age differences is not a reason to divide the pension receipts differently – just as if the pension of one party is higher than the other, there is no need to change the distribution of resources.
However, the judges ruled that the pension money should be distributed unequally in light of the exceptional circumstances of the case. The ruling states that “this is a particularly large period of time, since the woman will start receiving her share of the man’s pension immediately from 2015, while on the other hand, the man will receive his share of the woman’s pension only about 15 years later.” According to the court, “If the woman continues to work until retirement age then the man will receive his share of her pension only 12 years later, so it is almost double the time, and the man’s reach the age of heroism (age 80, AG). That is not fair. “
The tribunal further noted that “the woman does not intend to retire at an early age but to continue working until the official retirement age, and this fact changes the equality relationship between the parties.” In fact, the tribunal ruled that the pension rights of the two would be divided equally only from the date of the judgment and not from the date of the “rupture” 7 years before.
Petition: “Every couple will say it’s unfair”
Following the ruling, the woman, through her lawyer Einbar Lev, filed a petition with the High Court, claiming that the rabbinical court violated the rules of natural justice. Adv. Lev wonders in her petition – ” To her future rights but due to the age differences between them? “.
According to her, “the man married a woman when she was a young girl, only 20 years old, and enjoyed a young woman, full of life, strong in her waist, who gave birth to children. So now that she is separated, the petitioner’s age cannot be turned into a mine against her.” The petition further states that according to this rationale “all spouses with a significant age gap will claim that it is” unfair “that they are forced to act as a provision of the law and set aside their share of the pension for the other spouse.”
The Supreme Court does not appeal against the ruling of the Rabbinical Court, and that the intervention of the High Court in the rulings of the Rabbinical Court is reserved for extreme cases, such as violations of the rules of natural justice and distortion of justice. Resources between spouses at the time of their marriage come to an end.