Yes—in former times it would take half a year or even longer, whereas now it does not. Once these conditions are met, he is required to return. But if he is earning a livelihood that he needs and says, “I cannot come back. I have hired myself out to this man for eight months, and I am compelled to do this,” then he is not required to return, and she has no right to annul the marriage.

His statement, “If either of them refuses”: the pronoun is dual. Were the matters previously mentioned two? Yes: intercourse at least once every four months, and returning from travel. If either of them refuses despite being able to comply, the author says:

“They are separated at her request.” The phrase “they are separated” is in the passive voice, because the one who separates them is the ruler—that is, the judge.

Thus, if he remains away for more than half a year, for example, and his travel is not for pilgrimage, an obligatory military campaign, or a livelihood that he needs, and she asks him to return but he refuses despite being able to do so, then as soon as the half-year period has elapsed, she may go to the judge and say, “I wish to annul the marriage.”

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that the judge need not review the matter with the husband or correspond with him; rather, he may annul the marriage even without contacting him.

Some scholars said that it is not permissible to annul the marriage until the husband has been contacted. For example, the judge should write to him; what matters is that he establish contact and say, “You must return, otherwise we shall annul the marriage.” This view is more correct, because the husband may not disclose his excuse to his wife. But if the judge contacts him and he realizes that the matter has reached a point requiring separation, he may disclose his excuse. Moreover, this does not harm her: she has already waited half a year, so let her wait whatever further time is feasible for her husband’s case to be reviewed.