What is the ruling on grandparents, paternal uncles, and maternal uncles falling short in providing for their imprisoned brother's children and cutting off communication with them?

If the father is imprisoned and does not have money to spend on his children, then it is incumbent upon the relatives from both the father's and mother's sides to bear the responsibility of maintenance and kinship ties.

Maintenance is obligatory for relatives if they are wealthy. If one of them is poor or their income does not exceed their needs, then maintenance is not obligatory for them, and the obligation shifts to more distant relatives.

The greater obligation falls upon the male agnates (ʻasabah) from the father's side, who are the grandfather, then the paternal uncles, then their sons.

Scholars have based this on verses from the Holy Quran, prophetic traditions, and the practice of companions such as Umar ibn al-Khattab and Zayd ibn Thabit, who commanded the obligation of maintaining relatives for those who are able.

Some scholars have held that maintenance is distributed among those who are obliged to pay it according to their wealth, and this is a sound opinion.

So, if there are paternal uncles, and one of them is wealthier, then he bears a larger share of the maintenance.

If agnates and uterine relatives share in the maintenance, then what each individual bears will be light, which achieves mutual support and strengthens kinship ties.