Judge enraged by bitter divorce case in which father claims his religion above the law A FATHER-OF-EIGHT has enraged a judge in a bitter divorce case in Australia over his claims his religion was above the law. The 49-year-old man has been singled out after he refused to formerly take part in the custody and property proceedings when his wife of 22 years called it quits earlier this year. The ``wholly extraordinary case" highlighted a bitter family feud, with two of the warring couple's children resorting to ``vandalising" their mother's home to get her to call off the divorce. ``I hope I never have another like it," Judge Philip Burchardt said. The judge said he was forced to proceed with the case on an ``essentially undefended basis" after the ex-husband refused to properly participate. He said the religious man had embarked on an ``extensive filibuster" to avoid court, which included initial efforts to avoid being served with divorce papers. The religion involved in the break up was not revealed in the judgment, in which the ex-wife won her bid for custody of three of the children. Some of the ex-husband's efforts to avoid taking part in the hearing were described as ``extraordinary. At one stage, he refused to answer questions like whether he was an Australian citizen or not. Judge Burchardt said he also declined to say whether he was acting on his own behalf. `` (He) stated in the clearest of terms that the court did not have jurisdiction ... because, as he put it, his marriage was governed by a contract entered into pursuant to (religion)," the judge said. The ex-wife's divorce application was signed off by a lawyer after she alleged it was a ``verbally, psychologically and financially" abusive marriage. She left after her daughter had a knife held to her throat by her father in a foreign country. The decision gives her sole custody of children aged 15, 13 and 10. There are also four adult children who no longer live at home. The judge ordered a 17-year-old son live with his father after claims he and his older brother had ``terrorised" their mother and ``vandalised" her rented property. ``She accused the husband of instigating them to do so," the judge said. ``On the wife's evidence, which is all the evidence I have, it is clear that the husband kept all the earnings from his business to himself, although he must have given the wife some support from time to time to bring up so large a family," Judge Burchardt said. ``It is not clear, however, whether the wife has done this at all times with the benefit of statutory benefits, which with so large a number of children, must from time to time have been relatively considerable.