Which of the two contracts is valid: the first one, in which the عصمة (right to divorce/marital authority) was not mentioned as being in the hand of the daughter, or the second one, in which it was mentioned, given that the husband did not divorce his wife after the first contract?

If the first marriage contract fulfilled its pillars, then it is valid and there is no need to repeat it, and the second contract is void. However, the second contract included a condition that the divorce be in the wife's hand. If she agreed to it, then she has made her affair absolutely in her own hand. Scholars have differed on this matter: some are of the opinion that she may divorce herself whenever she wishes, while others believe that she may do so only within the session. The majority of scholars hold that it is perpetually in her hand.