What is the ruling on the master traveling with a female slave who is married?

Primary text

If the master desires to travel with the married female slave, Ahmad refrained from giving a definitive ruling. It is argued that he should be prevented because traveling would deprive the husband of his due right, analogous to preventing the husband from traveling with her while residing locally. Furthermore, since the master owns one of her two benefits (service), he cannot prevent the other right holder (the husband) from traveling with her, similar to a case where one rents her out. Conversely, it is argued that he has the right to travel with her because he owns her original title (ownership of the person), akin to a master marrying off his male slave. If the husband stipulates that the slave be delivered to him day and night without conditions, this is valid, and he bears all sustenance costs, but the master is prohibited from traveling with her because he retains no right to her benefit.