The Effect of Rule of Distress and Constriction Negation on Men’s Preference in the Family Based on Shi’ite Jurisprudence and laws of Islamic Republic of Iran

The rule of distress and constriction negation is among the oft-used rules that is manifested in different areas of jurisprudence and law. One of the uses of this rule is in family jurisprudence, specifically in restricting the wardenship and preference of the husband over the family. According to the findings of the present study, that is obtained through analysis and description of the jurisprudents’ terms and the laws of Islamic Republic of Iran, preference means managing the husband’s rights, and in return, duties and responsibilities are specified for wife which are considered as the symbols of the man’s preference. The most important ones are as follow: the necessity of husband’s permission in woman’s going out in cases that is against the husband’s taking advantage of her; the necessity of obeying and submitting to the husband based on common law, and the need of complying women with her husband’s decision in determining the place of residence. On the other hand, the rule of distress negation, through presuppositions such as being personal and actual distress, restricts the superiority and preference of men in some cases. The present study, after considering some topics in the rule of distress and constriction negation, whether it be a typical or personal as well as situational or actual, explains how this rule constricts the preference of the man in the above-mentioned cases based on Shi’ite Jurisprudence and laws of Islamic Republic of Iran.