and for his benefit. But if she travels for her own need without his permission, her maintenance is forfeited, because she has prevented him from marital enjoyment. If the wife says, “I have not prevented him from travelling; if he wishes, he may travel with me,” we reply: He does not wish to travel, and it is not customary for a husband to follow his wife: when she travels, he travels, and when she stays, he stays.

But if she travels for her own need with his permission—for example, if she says to him, “I want to see a doctor,” or, “I want to go and sit an examination at another college in Riyadh,” and the husband permits her—then her maintenance is likewise deemed forfeited. This, however, is a weak view.

The correct view is that if he gives permission, her maintenance remains due, because he is the one who agreed to it.

If the journey is for the need of someone other than either of them—for example, she wishes to travel with her mother in order to care for her during an illness—then her maintenance is forfeited. But if the husband gives permission, the correct view is that it is not forfeited.

The point is that marital enjoyment is the husband’s right. If he waives it, the wife’s rights are not thereby forfeited, for he could have said no. If he says no, then she must either obey him or disobey him. If she disobeys him, she is nushūz (recalcitrant), and she has no right to maintenance; but if she obeys him, her maintenance remains due.

If the journey is for a need shared by them both, her maintenance is not forfeited, because he has permitted it and because the benefit is not exclusively hers.

In summary—and this is the more likely view—the basic principle is that maintenance is obligatory by virtue of the marriage contract, as the Prophet ﷺ said: “They have the right upon you to be provided with food and clothing in a fitting manner” (1). This basic entitlement cannot be forfeited except