What is the ruling on a husband remaining separated from his wife and children for three years due to being prevented from traveling as a result of a case filed against him?

The ruling on a husband's absence from his wife varies depending on the wife's situation. If she is content, there is no objection, as Ibn 'Uthaymeen said: "If the husband is absent from her to seek a livelihood with her consent, and she is in a safe place where nothing is feared for her, then there is no harm in that." However, the husband should not prolong his absence, even if the wife consents, due to the potential harms involved. Therefore, the husband should not excessively prolong his absence, in order to preserve psychological well-being and moral chastity. And if Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) set the duration of absence at four months, that was in consideration of the custom and nature prevalent at that time. As for now, the interest should be considered due to the ease of transportation.

As for when the wife is not content, the husband is not permitted to be absent except with her permission and consent. An exception to this is the period that jurists have specified during which the husband may be absent even if she does not consent. If the absence is against the husband's will due to his inability to travel, there is no blame on him, and he must provide for her maintenance.

A husband's prolonged absence from his wife does not necessitate her divorce. A woman is not divorced except by her husband's divorce or by a judge's ruling.