What is the ruling on divorce occurring in two scenarios: First, the husband swore an oath to his wife by triple divorce in a single utterance if she returned home without his permission, and his intention was that if he permitted her to return, the divorce would not occur, but if she returned without his permission, the divorce would occur, while conveying this intention to her indirectly. Second, a day later, he allowed her to return to take her belongings but without explicit permission, along with a threat of triple divorce, and on the same day, he told his father that it did not matter to him whether she returned with his permission or without it, she would be divorced, yet he still intended his original intention?

Summary of the Fatwa:

If your intention when swearing the oath was to prevent your wife from returning home without your permission, then you do not break your oath if she returns with your permission.

As for your later statement to your father that she would be divorced whether she returned with or without your permission, if this was the creation of a new divorce pronouncement, not conditioned on permission, then three divorces occur, and the wife becomes irrevocably divorced (Bainunah Kubra).

However, if it was merely an explanation of the previous pronouncement and a retraction of its conditionality on permission, then no divorce results, and the conditionality is not nullified.

This fatwa is based on the view of the majority of scholars. Nevertheless, some scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyyah, are of the opinion that an oath of divorce not intended to effect divorce but rather for threat or emphasis, is treated like an oath by Allah, requiring an expiation for a broken oath (kaffarat yamin) and not resulting in divorce. He also believes that triple divorce counts as a single divorce if divorce was intended.

Given that there is a difference of opinion on this matter, it is advisable to present it to trustworthy scholars and act upon their advice.