There is a concept in Jewish law that says אסור לבעל, אסור לבועל - an adulterous woman (who is found guilty of her adultery) becomes prohibited to both her husband and her lover. She cannot stay married to her husband, nor can she marry her lover after she and her husband divorce.

The case in the courts was the classic - she was caught in an adulterous affair, they decided to divorce. The divorce was consensual and undisputed, so the beis din never looked too much into proof of the adulterous affair as the cause of the divorce. They accepted the fact and decided that she is prohibited to both her husband and she would not be allowed to marry her lover.

The woman eventually appealed and wanted that clause, prohibiting her from marrying her lover, erased from her file. Eventually the case was closed in beis din because she moved it to the Supreme Court. The petition to the court was submitted with the claim that the beis din was not authorized to evaluate the claim of adultery, and the adulterous affair was never even brought up in the divorce case. and therefore they had no right to put sanctions on a third party (i.e. the lover) who was not a party in the case.

The beis din argued to the court in return that they are the only ones authorized to judge marriage and divorce cases of Jews in Israel, including the ability to marry and placing limitations on such matters.

The court decided to sop the petition, supporting the position of the beis din as the sole decider of those unable to marry.

At the end of the day, the court supported the right of the beis din to determine and apply the concept of אסור לבעל, אסור לבועל.
source: NRG