Does a divorce that occurred due to the wife being coerced into seeking a divorce, with the father acting as her agent, take effect? And is the ' رجعة' (return to the marriage) counted merely by the husband saying "I have taken you back," without the father's knowledge or new documentation? And what should the wife do regarding her father preventing her from communicating with her husband?

The majority of jurists hold that a valid seclusion (khalwa (definition) sahiha) takes the place of consummation. Thus, if a man divorces his wife after a valid seclusion with her, the divorce is revocable (raj'i). If the father absolves the husband from his daughter's mahr (dowry) or a portion of it, the divorce is revocable, and the husband can take her back without needing her consent, her father's consent, a new mahr, or a new contract.

However, if the husband divorces in exchange for a compensation paid by the father from his private funds, or if the father performs khul' (divorce at the wife's instance, for a consideration) with the husband using his daughter's money without stating that he is her agent, the divorce is irrevocable (bain). In this case, the father owes the husband the mahr al-mithl (customary dowry), and the husband must pay the wife her full mahr.

If the father states that he is an agent for his daughter in the absolution, but she did not authorize him, or if he acts as her guardian while she is an adult of sound judgment, the divorce does not occur at all. So, if the father absolves the husband from the mahr and states that he is an agent for his daughter, and the husband divorces in exchange for money, the divorce does not occur at all, and the wife remains under his marital bond.

If he does not state the agency, the divorce is irrevocable (bain), and the father must pay the husband the mahr al-mithl. The husband would then need a new contract and a new mahr. To determine the correct ruling, one must know the exact words the father used in the absolution and consult courts and scholars of knowledge.