Weird news - Punishing a father since his son not granting divorce

It seems like a weird case. After all, in cases of a divorce, legal matters are typically between the husband and wife, and parents are mostly not included; unless there is some kind of harassment that is also part of the overall separation and divorce proceedings However this divorce proceeding in Israel is different, since the divorce law over there (which in turn is based on religious laws) ensures that the husband gets a veto over the divorce. Unless the divorce is granted by the husband, it will not happen. Over a period of time, the rabbinical courts have been granted powers to 'persuade' the husband in case he is not willing.
However, in this case, the husband was not present in Israel, instead spending time in the United States, primarily due his rich father who provides his son a stipend and a job. So when the father came to Israel for a visit, he was prevented from leaving and his passport taken away. The father is protesting about the court doing a kind of extortion attempt on him to ensure that his son comes to Israel and grants the divorce, and it would seem that the rabbinical courts have no other leverage (link to article):

According to the court documents, the wife suffered the stroke on a visit to Israel with her husband in 2005. Shortly after, the husband returned to the U.S., where he remains. His wife and their two children stayed in Israel and she became an Israeli citizen. The court says the husband has ignored her request and a court ruling for a divorce as well as another ruling demanding he pay alimony. The father is in his late 60s and according to court documents is a wealthy member of New York's Hasidic community who runs a real estate company. He was in Israel last year on a family visit when he was summoned to the court, told to hand in his and his wife's passports and barred from leaving the country. He was later sentenced to 30 days in prison for contempt of court. The rabbinical court argues that by providing his son with a job and stipend, the father is responsible for his son's intransigence. His lawyers argue he is being used as leverage to pressure his son and are appealing to the Supreme Court.