What is the ruling on the oath sworn by the father that "his wife and children are forbidden to him if he gives this person his passport before he pays him the disputed amount," and what is the ruling on the action of the mother and grandmother in giving the passport and handing a sum of money to the father while falsely claiming that the man brought it?

Scholars differ on the issue of swearing to forbid one's wife. The preponderant view is that it depends on the intention of the one swearing. If he did not intend anything specific, it is an oath that requires expiation (kaffarah). Forbidding children is an idle utterance (laghw) that has no consequence. Breaking this oath (al-hinth fi hadhihi al-yameen) depends on the intention of the one who swore. If he intended to prevent the passport from reaching the person by any means, then he has broken his oath by giving him the passport. If he intended not to give it to him himself, then he has not broken his oath if someone else gave it. If he swore generally and did not intend anything specific, then the ruling reverts to the reason for the oath. If his purpose was to obtain a debt, then he has not broken his oath. If his purpose was to harm him, then he has broken his oath. What the mother and grandmother did by giving the passport without the father's knowledge and lying to him is permissible to avert a great harm, for lying is permitted for the sake of reconciliation. It is not permissible to swear by other than Allah.