Does a legal ruling result from a man saying to his wife, "You are forbidden to me," without intending divorce, Zihar, or an oath, especially if it was said without anger or a quarrel?

It is not permissible for a wife to refuse her husband unless there is a legitimate impediment. Refusal without cause or due to ordinary fatigue is considered a grave sin, and angels curse her if her husband spends the night angry with her. The husband should consider his wife's condition, but if he insists on intercourse, she must respond to him. As for a man saying to his wife, "You are unlawful to me" or similar phrases, the matter depends on his intention: if he intended divorce, it is a divorce; if he intended ẓihār, it is ẓihār; and if he intended an oath, it is an oath. If he did not intend anything, the preponderant opinion is that it is an oath requiring expiation, which is feeding or clothing ten needy persons, or freeing a slave, or fasting three days for those who cannot find [the former options].