and demanding it at all times. Therefore, it is permitted for her to take it without the permission of the one upon whom it is incumbent. The Qadi mentioned another distinction between this and a debt, which is that a wife's maintenance lapses upon the passing of its time according to some scholars, unless a judge has ordered it for her; if she were not to take her right, it would lead to its loss and harm to her. This is unlike a debt, which does not lapse for anyone by refraining from demanding it, so refraining from taking it does not lead to its annulment.

Section: He must pay her maintenance to her at the beginning of each day when the sun rises, because that is the first time of need. If they both agree to delay it, it is permissible, because the right belongs to her; if she is satisfied with its delay, it is valid, like a debt. If they agree to advance the maintenance for a year or a month, or less or more than that, or to delay it, it is permissible because the right belongs to both of them and does not go beyond them; thus, advancing or delaying it as they agree is permissible, like a debt. We know of no disagreement among the scholars regarding this. If he delivers the maintenance of a day to her and then she dies during it, he cannot reclaim it from her because he has paid what was incumbent upon him to pay. If he separates from her after the obligation to pay has passed, her maintenance for that time does not lapse, and she has the right to demand it from him because it has become obligatory and is not extinguished by divorce, like a debt. If he advances her the maintenance for a month or a year, and then he divorces her, or she dies before it expires, or she becomes separated from him by annulment (faskh), the conversion of one of them to Islam, or the apostasy of one of them, he has the right to reclaim the maintenance for the remainder of the month. Al-Shafi'i and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan held this view. Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf said: He cannot reclaim it, because it is a gift (silah); once she has taken possession of it, he has no right to return to it, like voluntary charity. Our argument is that he delivered the maintenance to her in advance for what is due in the future; therefore, when the factor preventing the obligation occurs, the right to reclaim it is established, just as if he had paid her in advance and she then became rebellious (nashiz), or if he advanced zakat to the collector and his property perished before the passage of a year.