What is the ruling regarding a wife remaining with her husband who falsely swore, saying: "It is unlawful for me if I saw you doing such-and-such," while she is certain she did not do that and he knows he is lying?

The husband's oath to his wife, saying, "My wife is unlawful to me if this thing did not happen," falls into one of two categories:

First: If he intentionally lied, then this refers to his intention. If he intended divorce, it is a divorce. If he intended ẓihār, it is ẓihār, and he is obligated to offer the ẓihār expiation. If he intended an oath, then he is obligated to offer the oath expiation. If he did not intend anything specific, then it is an oath requiring expiation.

Second: If he did not intentionally lie, but rather swore, believing that what he swore upon was true, when in fact it was not, then nothing is incumbent upon him, and his oath is considered a laghw (idle) oath.

The questioner should inform her husband of the حرمة (unlawfulness) of what he did and ask him to seek release from what he said, either by taking her back if he intended divorce, or by performing the ẓihār expiation if he intended ẓihār (with the note that it is not permissible for him to have intercourse until he performs the expiation), or the oath expiation if he intended an oath or did not intend anything specific.