the annulment was permitted due to the impossibility of providing maintenance. This is evidenced by the fact that if she were to borrow what she spends on herself, or if someone were to volunteer to pay for what she spends, she would not possess the right of annulment. Regarding their statement that "it is possible that he will provide maintenance after this," we say: The same applies to the insolvent person; it is possible that Allah will enrich him, or that he will borrow, or be given what he can spend. Thus, they are equal.

Section: Whoever is obligated to provide maintenance for his wife, and he has a debt owed to him by her, may set off his debt against her maintenance. If she is solvent, he may do so, because whoever is entitled to a right may settle it from whichever of his assets he wishes, and this [debt] is part of his wealth. If she is insolvent, he may not do so, because the settlement of a debt is only obligatory from one's surplus provisions, and this [maintenance] is not surplus to her needs. Furthermore, Allah Almighty has commanded giving respite to the insolvent, by His saying—Glory be to Him—: "And if someone is in hardship, then [let there be] postponement until [a time of] ease" (Quran 2:280). Thus, it is obligatory to grant her respite regarding what is owed by her.

Section: In every case where annulment is established for her due to maintenance, it is not permissible except by the judgment of the ruler, because it is an annulment that is differed upon, and thus it requires a ruler, like the annulment due to impotence. It is not permissible for him to effect the separation unless the woman requests it, because it is for her right, and therefore it is not permissible without her request, just like the annulment due to impotence. If the ruler effects the separation between them, it is an annulment regarding which he has no right of return (raja'a). This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i and Ibn al-Mundhir. Malik said: It is a pronouncement of divorce (talaqa), and he has a superior right to her if he becomes solvent during her waiting period ('idda), because it is a separation due to his refusal to provide the obligation he owes her, so it resembles his separation between the muli (one who has sworn to abstain) and his wife when he refuses to resume relations or divorce. Our argument is that it is a separation due to his inability to perform the obligation owed to her, so it resembles the separation for impotence. As for if the ruler compelled him to divorce, and he divorced fewer than three times, he has the right of return to her as long as she is in the waiting period. If he resumes the marriage while he is still insolvent, or continues to refuse to provide maintenance for her, and it is not possible to take from his wealth, and the woman requests annulment, the ruler may grant the annulment because the requirement for it still remains, resembling the situation before the divorce.