He was asked—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—about a man who could not afford to support his daughter and was away. She was staying with her mother, and her grandmother was supporting her, although she was well-to-do and no maintenance payment had been assessed against him:

“May she recover the maintenance expenses for the period during which he could not afford to support his daughter? If he is not known to possess any wealth, is his word concerning his poverty to be accepted, or that of the claimant?

“If he resides in a town where his interests are best served and wishes to take his daughter with him when moving permanently, is he entitled to take her with him while her mother retains custody?”

He replied:

“For the period during which he could not afford to support her, no maintenance was due from him. Anyone who spent on her during that period without his permission has no right to reimbursement. There is no disagreement among the scholars concerning this. The disagreement concerns only cases in which someone spent without the father’s permission while the father was obliged to provide maintenance.

“One view is that the person may recover what he spent, provided he did not intend it as a gift. This is the position of Abū Hanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī, and one position reported from Ahmad. The father may not be imprisoned over this maintenance or a claim for its reimbursement until his obligation has been established by proving that he had the means to pay.

“If they disagree over whether he had sufficient means, and he is not known to possess any wealth, his word is to be accepted upon his oath. If he resides in a town other than the mother’s, custody belongs to him, not to her, even though the mother has the stronger right to custody when they reside in the same town. This, too, is the position of the four imams. And Allah knows best.”