The orthodox Jew, his ex-wife and a £1.4m court fight
A MOTHER who fled her ultraorthodox Jewish community yesterday won a £ 1.4million court battle with her estranged husband.
Miriam Kliers, 46, left her strictly religious partner Shlomo, also 46, for another man in 2012.
She has spoken out against the restrictions placed on women in orthodox Jewish families and the difficulty she encountered in getting an education. She eventually obtained a degree through the Open University and obtained a Jewish divorce in 2013.
In an interview three years ago she said: ‘I decided that no one gets to tell me what to do to my body, my hair, or how to dress. Enough was enough.’
She has been embroiled in a bitter fight with Mr Kliers over the ownership of their home, which he has continued to occupy along with their three children and his own new partner.
He and Mrs Kliers had bought the property in Stamford Hill, north London, for £418,000 in 2004 – but its value has increased by £1million.
In April Mrs Kliers won a court order forcing her husband to leave the property for it to be sold. She was awarded most of the proceeds, based on her family’s contribution to the original purchase.
Mr Kliers, who has filed for divorce, has now lost his bid to have the case moved to the Family Court in the hope of a higher payout from the house sale.
His lawyer, Nicholas Fairbank, told an appeal at the High Court in London that the earlier settlement was unfair. He said after debts were paid off only £165,000 would go to his client and around £810,000 to Mrs Kliers. He added: ‘We are open about the fact the only reason Mr Kliers petitioned for divorce and seeks to have the case transferred to the Family Court is to establish ownership of the property and seek to preserve the home for himself.’
Peter Shaw QC, for Mrs Kliers, said the husband’s ‘cynical ploy’ in trying to get the case before a divorce judge must not succeed.
He said Mrs Kliers had served a possession application on her husband in May but he was still living in the house.
Handing victory to the wife, Judge Patrick McCahill said there was no evidence the original ruling was wrong and he would not interfere with it.