including the following:

The purpose of maintenance is to feed her, not to safeguard money for her.

Second: There is no benefit in her guardian receiving it.

Third: This does not require his permission, for it is her entitlement under Islamic law. The Lawgiver has made providing for her obligatory; thus, even if her guardian forbade it, his prohibition would carry no weight.

Fourth: His acquiescence in her remaining there, when maintenance is needed, constitutes permission by custom. Nor can it be argued that he did not entrust the husband with providing maintenance, for two reasons:

First: Islamic law itself has entrusted him with this, just as it has entrusted the husband with her person, her allotted share of his time, and her other rights. Men are responsible for women, and women are like captives with men, as the Quran and Sunnah indicate.

Second: Entrusting someone by custom is equivalent to entrusting him expressly. And Allah knows best.”

He was asked—may Allah have mercy on him—about a man whose wife had him imprisoned over her clothing and bridal due, and who remained imprisoned for some time: could she demand maintenance from him for the period of imprisonment she had caused?

He replied:

“If he was unable to pay and she had him imprisoned, she was wronging him and preventing him from exercising his marital rights with her. She is therefore not entitled to maintenance from him during that period. But if she had an enforceable right that was already due, and he was able to fulfil it but withheld it after a lawful demand, then he was the one acting wrongfully. If, despite this, she remained willing to fulfil her obligations towards him, she would be entitled to maintenance.”