## Facts

- A Jewish wife and husband were married under Jewish law; the marriage broke down and the wife sought a religious divorce (get) for about twelve years.
- The wife pursued relief in rabbinical forums; multiple religious authorities concluded the marriage was not salvageable and that the husband should give a get.
- The rabbinical court ultimately ruled the husband was obligated to give a get; he still refused, and the rabbinical court excommunicated him.
- The wife filed a civil tort action in the Jerusalem Family Court seeking damages for the husband’s continued refusal to grant the get.
- The wife asserted negligence and related statutory-duty theories, alleging prolonged get-refusal caused serious psychological and life harms.

## Issues

1. Whether a husband’s continued refusal to grant a get, after a rabbinical court ruled he is obligated to do so, can constitute a civil wrong actionable in tort for damages.
2. If tort liability exists, when the relevant duty of care arises: only after an explicit rabbinical-court obligation to give a get, or earlier in the marital breakdown.

## Decision

- The Family Court held the husband’s continued refusal to give a get after a rabbinical-court obligation could give rise to civil liability, primarily under negligence.
- The court limited the duty of care to the period after the rabbinical court issued an explicit ruling obligating the husband to give a get.
- The court awarded the wife 425,000 NIS in damages for harm caused by the prolonged refusal.

## Legal Principles

- A spouse may owe a civil duty of care to the other spouse not to prolong marital captivity through unjustified refusal to grant a get once a competent rabbinical court has ruled the refusing spouse is obligated to do so.
- Continued refusal after such an obligation may constitute negligence where the harm to the other spouse is foreseeable and the refusal is unreasonable in light of the parties’ relationship and the authoritative determination that the marriage should end.
- Civil damages may be awarded to compensate psychological and related harms caused by extended get-refusal, without the civil court directly ordering issuance of the get.

## Conclusion

The Jerusalem Family Court recognized tort-based damages for get-refusal where a rabbinical court had already imposed an explicit obligation to grant the get, holding that continued refusal breached a civil duty of care and warranted substantial compensation for resulting harm.


K.S. v. K.P., FamC (Jer) 19270/03 (Isr. Fam. Ct. 2004)