نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد، حقوق خانواده، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران
2 استادیار گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران
3 استادیار گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Male adultery, as a violation of the husband's basic duties of marriage (including spending, good company, and cohabitation), has been mentioned less in jurisprudential and legal literature than female adultery; however, it has direct consequences on the dignity of the wife and the stability of the family. This research aims to explain the concept and comparative analysis of male adultery in Imamiyya jurisprudence and the four Sunni schools of thought, as well as to analyze its reflections in Iranian law. The research method is descriptive-analytical and comparative: relying on original jurisprudential sources (Imamiiyya and common), interpretation of relevant verses (An-Nisa: 34 and 128; Al-Baqarah: 226), and Iranian regulations (Articles 1103, 1106, 1129, 1130 of the Civil Code and protective regulations). A comparative study shows that there is a strong connection at the level of definition and examples: abandonment of alimony, misbehavior, and abandonment of cohabitation are considered clear signs of male infidelity in both jurisprudential traditions; with the difference that the threshold for realization and the mechanism for the judge’s intervention are more diverse in the four schools of thought (especially in the Maliki and Hanbali schools compared to the Hanafi school). In Imami jurisprudence, the path of “compulsion - ta’zir - judicial divorce” in the case of continuous refusal is more clearly and coherently outlined. In Iranian law, although the term “male infidelity” is not specified, effective mechanisms have been foreseen to deal with its effects: obligation to spend (and the possibility of criminal prosecution in the case of affordability and refusal), divorce based on Article 1129 in the case of abandoning unenforceable spending, and divorce based on hardship and hardship under Article 1130 in the case of misbehavior or sexual rejection and rejection. The result is that by reading jurisprudential principles and legal articles in a coherent manner,
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)