ﺟﺮم اﻧﮕﺎري ﺗﺮك اﻧﻔﺎق در ﻓﻘﻪ و ﺣﻘﻮق اﯾﺮان ﺑﺎ ﻧﮕﺎﻫﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻘﻪ اﻫﻞ ﺳﻨﺖ

Criminalization of relinquishment to pay maintenance in the law and Jurisprudence of Iran with a view on Sunni Jurisprudence

ﺗﺮك اﻧﻔﺎق در ﻗﺎﻧﻮن ﺟﺮم اﻧﮕﺎري ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ و زوج در ﺻﻮرت ﻧﭙﺮداﺧﺘﻦ ﻧﻔﻘﻪ، ﻣﻮرد ﺗﻌﻘﯿﺐ ﮐﯿﻔﺮي ﻗـﺮار ﺧﻮاﻫﺪ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ. ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس ﻧﻈﺮ اﮐﺜﺮ ﻓﻘﻬﺎي اﻣﺎﻣﯿﻪ، زوﺟﯽ ﮐﻪ از ﭘﺮداﺧﺖ ﻧﻔﻘﻪ ﻫﻤﺴﺮش ﺧﻮدداري ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨـﺪ، در ﺻﻮرﺗﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺗﻮان ﻣﺎﻟﯽ داﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ زﻧﺪاﻧﯽ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮد. ﻣﺎده 642 ﻗﺎﻧﻮن ﻣﺠﺎزات ﻧﯿﺰ ﺑـﺮ ﻫﻤـﯿﻦ ﻣﺒﻨـﺎ زوج ﻣﻤﺘﻨﻊ را ﻣﺤﮑﻮم ﺑﻪ ﺣﺒﺲ ﻣﯽ داﻧﺪ. اﻣﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮات ﻣﻨﻔﯽ ﮐﻪ اﯾﻦ اﺣﮑﺎم ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮاﻧﺪ ﺑﺮ ﺑﻨﯿﺎن ﺧﺎﻧﻮاده و رواﺑﻂ ﺑﯿﻦ زوﺟﯿﻦ داﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ اﯾﻦ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﺷﮑﻞ ﻣﯽ ﮔﯿﺮد ﮐﻪ آﯾﺎ اﯾﻦ ﻗﻮاﻧﯿﻦ، ﻗﺎﺑـﻞ ﺗﺠﺪﯾـﺪﻧﻈﺮ و ﺗﻌـﺪﯾﻞ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﯾﺎ ﺧﯿﺮ؟ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺑﻪ روش ﺗﻮﺻﯿﻔﯽ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻠﯽ و ﺑﺎ ﮔﺮدآوري اﻃﻼﻋﺎت ﺑﻪ ﺷﯿﻮه ﮐﺘﺎﺑﺨﺎﻧﻪاي اﻧﺠﺎم ﭘﺬﯾﺮﻓﺘﻪ اﺳـﺖ اﺻﻠﯽ ﺗﺮﯾﻦ دﻟﯿﻞ و ﻣﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺟﻮاز ﺣﺒﺲ زوﺟﻪ، رواﯾﺎﺗﯽ اﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻃﺒﻖ آﻧﻬﺎ ﺣﻀﺮت اﻣﯿـﺮ ) ( زوﺟـﯽ ﮐﻪ از ﭘﺮداﺧﺖ ﻧﻔﻘﻪ اﻣﺘﻨﺎع ﻣﯽ ﮐﺮد را ﺣﺒﺲ ﻧﻤﻮدﻧﺪ. ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﺑﺮﺧﯽ از ﻣﻮاﻓﻘﯿﻦ ﺣﺒﺲ زوج ﻣﺠﻬﻮل اﻟﺤﺎل، اﺳﺘﻨﺎد ﺑﻪ رواﯾﺎﺗﯽ ﮐﺮده اﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﻋﺎم اﺷﺎره ﺑﻪ ﺣﺒﺲ زوج در ﺻﻮرت ﻋﺪم ﭘﺮداﺧﺖ ﻧﻔﻘﻪ دارد. رواﯾﺎت ﻣﺰﺑﻮر ﺑﺮ ﺟﻮاز زﻧﺪاﻧﯽ ﮐﺮدن زوج ﻣﻌﺴﺮ و زوج ﻣﺠﻬﻮل اﻟﺤﺎل و ﻓﺮدي ﮐﻪ ادﻋﺎي اﻋﺴﺎر ﻣـﯽ ﮐﻨـﺪ ﺗﺎ زﻣﺎﻧﯽ ﮐﻪ اﯾﺴﺎر اﺛﺒﺎت ﻧﺸﻮد، دﻻﻟﺘﯽ ﻧﺪارد و ﺻﺮﻓﺎً در ﻣﻮرد زوج ﻣﻮﺳﺮي ﮐﻪ از دادن ﻧﻔﻘﻪ اﻣﺘﻨﺎع ﮐـﺮده و ﻣﺎل ﻇﺎﻫﺮي ﻧﺪارد ﺣﮑﻢ ﺗﻌﺰﯾﺮي ﺣﺒﺲ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ اﺳﺖ. ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮاﯾﻦ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﭘﯿﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎي ﻣﻨﻔﯽ ﺣﺒﺲ ﺑﻪ وﯾـﮋه در ﺣﻮزه ﺳﯿﺎﺳﺖ ﻫﺎي ﮐﻠﯽ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﺑﺮ ﺧﺎﻧﻮاده ﺑﺎﯾﺪ در ﻣﻮرد اﺣﮑـﺎم ﮐﯿﻔـﺮي در ﺣـﻮزه ﺧـﺎﻧﻮاده ﺑـﺎزﻧﮕﺮي ﮔﺮدد.

Background and objectives: Relinquishment to pay maintenance is criminalized in law and if husband fails to pay maintenance, he will be prosecuted. According to the majority of Imamiyya jurists, any husband who refuses to pay the alimony of his wife, while having financial capability, will be sentenced to imprisonment. Accordingly, Article 642 of Penal Code also convicts such husband to imprisonment. But given the negative effects that these sentences can have on the basis of the family and the relationships between couple, the question arises as to whether these laws are subject to revision or modification Methodology: The study is descriptive-analytical and library method is used for data collection. Findings: The evidence used for permission of husband's imprisonment is based on traditions that report Ali (AS) imprisoned husbands who refused to pay the alimony of their wives. Some also referred to narrations that generally refer to the husband's imprisonment if he did not pay for his wife's alimony. Conclusion: The given narratives do not permit imprisonment of an insolvent husband nor the one of unknown state or one who claims insolvency unless his claim is proved; discretionary sentencing merely applies on an insolvent husband who refuses to pay the alimony of his wife and does not have actual property. Therefore, because of negative consequences of sentencing, criminal rules on family matters, particularly the general policies on family, shall be reviewed.