In the case of his absence, if he has an agent, then the ruling of his agent is the same as his own ruling regarding the demand and taking from the wealth upon his refusal. If he has no agent and the woman is unable to take [it], the ruler shall take it for her from his wealth, and it is permissible to sell his real estate and goods for that purpose if she finds nothing else to spend. He shall provide for the woman day by day. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i and Yahya ibn Adam. The People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: He shall stipulate for her [a maintenance amount] every month. Our argument is that this is an advancement of maintenance before it becomes due, so it is not permissible, just as if he were to advance her maintenance for more than a month.

Section: If he conceals his wealth, remains patient in prison, and the ruler is unable to find wealth of his to take, or is unable to take the maintenance from the wealth of the absent person, then she has the option of annulment, according to the apparent statement of al-Khiraqi and the preference of Abu al-Khattab. The Qadi preferred the view that she does not possess the right of annulment, which is the apparent position of the Shafi'i school; because annulment in the case of the insolvent is due to the defect of insolvency, which is not found here. Also, because the solvent person is in a position where it is possible to take from his wealth; even if he refuses on one day, he might not [refuse] the next day, unlike the insolvent person. Our argument is that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote regarding men who were absent from their wives, ordering them to either provide maintenance or divorce. This is a compulsion to divorce upon refusal to provide maintenance. Furthermore, since providing for her from his wealth is impossible, she has the option, just as in the case of insolvency—or rather, this is more entitled to annulment, for if annulment is permissible for the excused [insolvent], it is more so for the one other than him. Additionally, there is harm in patience that can be removed through annulment, so its removal is obligatory. Moreover, this is a type of impossibility that permits annulment, so the situation does not differ between the solvent and the insolvent, just like the payment of the price of sold goods, for there is no difference in the permissibility of annulment between the buyer being insolvent and him fleeing before paying the price, and the defect of insolvency only permitted annulment.