Haifa Family Court Rejects Husband's Retroactive Child Support Claim Over Alleged Infidelity

The Family Court in Haifa recently dismissed a husband's request to retroactively cancel spousal support payments to his ex-wife, which he claimed were unjustified due to her alleged infidelity during their marriage. The couple officially divorced in June, and about a year before the divorce, the husband was ordered to pay approximately 10,000 shekels monthly in support, half to his wife and the rest for their two children.

After their separation, the husband sought to annul all spousal support payments retroactively, arguing that his wife had been unfaithful, a claim he said was proven by a private investigator. He also described his financial situation as dire, citing monthly expenses of around 30,000 shekels including mortgage, living costs, and support payments, which he said led to economic collapse. The husband, who owns four companies, claimed his financial troubles worsened after losing his job due to circumstances beyond his control, while accusing his ex-wife of living a luxurious lifestyle with a successful business and a luxury car.

The wife countered that the husband himself enjoys a lavish lifestyle, living in a penthouse, buying jewelry, and hosting extravagant events such as their son's bar mitzvah. She strongly opposed the retroactive cancellation of her support payments, arguing it lacked legal basis and that the husband acted in bad faith by raising the issue after she had already spent the money.

Judge Liron Zerbal-Kadshai ruled to cancel the spousal support payments only from the date of the divorce onward, emphasizing that the husband's obligation to support his wife is tied to the marriage and ends with its dissolution. The judge rejected the husband's request to cancel payments retroactively, stating that such a drastic measure requires substantial justification, which was absent in this case. Regarding the infidelity claim, the judge noted it did not reflect the reality as determined by the Rabbinical Court and preferred not to address it further. The ruling highlighted that retroactive cancellation would undermine the court's prior decisions and impose an undue burden on the wife. The husband's claims of financial hardship were also dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

In conclusion, the court ordered the cessation of spousal support payments only from the divorce date, denying any retroactive adjustments.