The correct view, then, is that the matter is referred to customary practice: whenever the woman needs clothing or maintenance, it must be provided for her.

If she has no need because she has old clothing or clothing from another source—for example, if relatives or friends have given her clothing, and the new year begins while she still has those garments—then the husband is not required to buy her new clothing. However, if she says, “I want to sell the gifts I received, and I demand new clothing from you,” then she has the right to do so.

His statement: “If he is absent and does not provide maintenance, he remains liable for the maintenance of the past period.” For example, a man says to his wife, “I will travel for one month,” and gives her maintenance for a month, but remains away for two or three months before returning. Her maintenance is not forfeited merely by the passage of time; rather, he remains liable for the maintenance of the past period. Thus, if she spends on herself, she may recover from her husband what she spent, because he is responsible for her maintenance—unless she spent on herself voluntarily and says, “I forgive him for what has passed.” It is her right, and she may waive it.

This differs from the maintenance of relatives. If a person is absent from his relative and does not provide maintenance, he is not liable for the maintenance of the past period. They distinguish the two by saying that maintenance for relatives is intended to meet need, whereas a wife's maintenance is a matter of reciprocal entitlement. Reciprocal entitlement is not forfeited by the passage of time, unlike that which is intended to meet a need. In the case of this relative, his need has already been met and has come to an end.

His statement: “If she spends from his wealth during his absence, then it becomes clear that he had died, the heir may hold her liable for what she spent after his death.” For example, a man was absent from his wife and died, but she did not