What is the ruling on divorce that occurs under moral duress or fear for the wife?

Most scholars have explicitly stated that the divorce of one who is coerced is not valid, provided that the coercion is compelling, involving a threat or intimidation from someone capable of carrying it out, and it is expected that harm will befall the coerced individual, such as death, severe beating, prolonged imprisonment, or the loss of substantial wealth. This applies whether the harm is directed at the coerced person or at those whose suffering would affect him. As for insults, verbal abuse, or the seizure of small amounts of money, these do not constitute compelling coercion. Divorce does not occur if it is issued under compelling coercion without just cause. However, if one is coerced rightfully, such as a judge compelling a husband who has sworn an oath of abstention (e.g., from marital relations) to divorce after the expiry of the oath's term, then the divorce is valid. Therefore, what is mentioned in the question does not constitute compelling coercion, and the divorce is valid.