Praise be to Allaah.
It is not permissible for a woman to go out of her husband’s
house without his permission. If she does that then she is naashiz
(defiantly disobedient) and she has no right to maintenance until she comes
back to obeying her husband.
But it is essential to know the reason why she has gone for
this long time. She may have done that to flee from a husband who was
mistreating her or beating her or abusing her and so on. In that case the
shortcoming and transgression were on his part, not hers.
If a woman defiantly disobeys her husband when she is
pregnant, is the husband obliged to maintain her during the pregnancy or
not? There is a difference of opinion among the fuqaha’ concerning this
matter, which is based on their difference of opinion as to whether the
maintenance during the pregnancy is for the infant or the mother. The
majority of scholars are of the view that a pregnant wife who is defiantly
disobedient is entitled to maintenance. This is the view of the Maalikis and
Hanbalis, and is one view of the Shaafa’is.
Ibn Qudaamah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Is
maintenance due to the pregnant woman for the sake of the infant or is it
due to the infant? There are two views, one of which is that it is due to
the infant. This was the view favoured by Abu Bakr, because it is due owing
to the existence of the infant, and ceases to be due when he is weaned. This
indicates that it is for him (the infant). The second view is that it is due
to her (the mother) because of him (the infant), because it is obligatory
whether the man is well off or hard up, so it is like maintenance of wives;
and because it is not waived with the passage of time, so it is like the
maintenance of the woman so long as the infant is still alive.
Al-Shaafa’i had two views, like those mentioned above, and
many other issues are based on these differences, such as: … If a man’s wife
is defiantly disobedient, and she is pregnant, and we say that maintenance
is due to the infant, then her maintenance is not waived, because the
maintenance of the infant is not waived because of his mother’s defiant
disobedience. But if we say that maintenance is due to her, then there is no
maintenance for her (in this case), because of her defiant disobedience. End
quote from al-Mughni (8/187),
It says in Mataalib Ooli al-Nuha (5/627): Maintenance
spent on the mother is due to the infant himself; it is not due to her
because of him, because it is due because of his existence, and it is waived
if he is no longer there. So it is obligatory to spend on a pregnant wife
who is defiantly disobedient, because the maintenance is for the infant, and
it cannot be waived because of the mother’s defiant disobedience. End
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
There is a difference of opinion concerning this issue among the fuqaha’.
Some of them say that maintenance is due to the mother because of the
Some say that maintenance is due to the child and not to the
mother because of him. This second view is more correct, but because we have
no way of making the maintenance reach the infant except by nourishing the
mother, then maintenance must be given to the mother because of the infant.
Based on this difference, if the wife is defiantly
disobedient when she is pregnant, is she entitled to maintenance?
If we say that maintenance is due to the infant [which is the
more correct view, as stated above], then maintenance is due to her, because
the infant is not being defiantly disobedient. But if we say that
maintenance is due to her, then her maintenance is waived, because she is
defiantly disobedient. End quote from al-Sharh al-Mumti’ (13/470).
Based on that, then spending on the infant is obligatory for
the father, even if his mother is defiantly disobedient.
If they dispute about the amount of maintenance, then the
case should be referred to the qaadi (judge), so that he may resolve the
dispute justly, as he sees fit.
May Allaah help us all to do that which He loves and which
And Allaah knows best.