What is the ruling on the husband's right to reclaim the dower if the dower was a debt, and the wife absolved him of that debt, followed by a divorce before consummation?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Dowry (Mahr)
Primary text
If it is ruled that the husband does not reclaim the dower in the case of an asset, then it is more strongly ruled that he does not reclaim it when the dower was a debt discharged by absolution. If it is ruled that he does reclaim the dower in the asset case, then there are two derived opinions here. The first opinion is that he does not reclaim it because absolution is the dropping of a right, not the establishment of ownership like in the case of physical assets, and thus does not require acceptance. Evidence supporting this is that if two witnesses testify against a man regarding a debt, and the creditor absolves him, the witnesses are not liable if they later retract their testimony; however, if he took possession of it and then gifted it to the creditor, the witnesses would be liable if they retracted. The second opinion is that he does reclaim it because the right returned to him without divorce, making it analogous to the asset case, and absolution is treated as a gift.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa is of the opinion that the husband does reclaim the dower in this case because the wife has fully received the dower and subsequently disposed of it, similar to if she gifted it to a non-relative. However, there is also a possibility that he does not reclaim it because what he dowered her with has returned to him, resembling the case where the asset was received by her, and then she gifted it back.