Scholars hold three views on this matter:

The first is that this is maintenance due to a wife observing her post-divorce waiting period, with no distinction between whether she is pregnant or not. This is the position of those who require maintenance for an irrevocably divorced woman just as they require it for a revocably divorced woman. It is held by a group of earlier and later scholars and is the school of Abū Hanīfa and others; it is also reported from Umar and Ibn Masʿūd. On this view, however, her pregnancy makes no difference, since they require that she be maintained until her waiting period ends, whether she is pregnant or not.

The second view is that she receives spousal maintenance on account of her pregnancy. This is one of al-Shāfiʿī’s two views and one of the two positions reported from Ahmad. This view is contradictory: if it is spousal maintenance, then it is owed because she is a wife, not because of the child. If it is because of the child, then maintenance for the child is also obligatory when the mother is not a wife, just as a man must maintain his pregnant concubine if he emancipates her.

These scholars hold two views on the question: “Is maintenance owed to the unborn child, or to her on account of the pregnancy?” If by “to her on account of the pregnancy” they mean that it is owed to this pregnant woman because she is pregnant, then there is no difference. But if they mean—and this is what they intend—that she is entitled to spousal maintenance on account of her pregnancy, this is contradictory. Spousal maintenance is obligatory even when there is no pregnancy, and maintenance for the unborn child is obligatory even when the mother is not a wife.

The third view, which is correct, is that maintenance is owed to the unborn child, and to her on account of the pregnancy, because she is carrying his child. It is therefore maintenance for the child, owed by the man because he is its father