Section: If she is satisfied to remain with him despite his insolvency or his abandonment of maintenance, and then later desires annulment; or if she marries an insolvent man while aware of his condition and satisfied with his insolvency and his abandonment of maintenance; or if he stipulated to her that he would not provide maintenance, and then she changes her mind and desires annulment, she may do so. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. The Qadi said: The apparent implication of Ahmad's words is that she has no right to annulment, and her option is void in both instances. This is also the view of Malik, because she consented to his defect and entered into the contract with knowledge of it, and thus does not possess the right of annulment, just as if she had married an impotent man while aware of his impotence, or said after the contract: "I have accepted him as an impotent man." Our argument is that the obligation of maintenance renews every day, and thus the right of annulment renews for her. It is not valid to waive her right regarding that which has not yet become obligatory upon her, just as it is not valid to waive her right of preemption (shuf'a) before the sale. For this reason, if she were to waive future maintenance, it would not be waived; and if she were to waive it or waive the dower before the marriage, it would not be waived. Since its obligation is not waived, the annulment established by it is not waived. If he is insolvent regarding the dower, and we hold that she has the right of annulment due to his insolvency regarding it, then if she is satisfied to remain with him, she does not have the right of annulment, because its obligation does not renew, unlike maintenance. If she married him while aware of his insolvency regarding the dower, and was satisfied with that, then she should not possess the right of annulment due to his insolvency regarding it, because she consented to that at a time when, had she waived it, it would have been waived.

Section: If she is satisfied to remain with him despite that, she is not obligated to allow him access to intimacy, because he has not delivered its compensation (the maintenance) to her, so she is not obligated to deliver it to him, just as if a buyer were insolvent regarding the price of the sold item; it is not mandatory to deliver it to him. He must, however, clear her path so that she may work to earn for herself and obtain what she needs to spend on her own person, because restraining her without providing maintenance constitutes harm to her. If she were wealthy, he would have no right to restrain her, because he only has the right to restrain her if he provides her with provisions and secures her against what she cannot do without, and because of his need for the intimacy that is obligatory upon her. Once both conditions are absent, he has no right to restrain her.

Section: Whoever abandons the obligatory maintenance for a wife for a period, it is not forfeited by that, and it remains a debt upon his liability, whether he abandoned it for an excuse or without an excuse, according to the more evident of the two narrations.