In spite of the fact that the jurisprudents, relying on the Verse 6 of the Surah DIVORCE, agree on the obligatory nature of the pregnant woman’ s alimony during waiting period after DIVORCE, there are two fundamental ambiguities surrounding this kind of alimony: on the one hand, it is disputed whether the above-mentioned alimony is for women or her pregnancy? The majority of jurisprudents hold that alimony is for her pregnancy. In contrast, a few of them hold that it is for the woman. On the other hand, the death of man after the woman's DIVORCE results in the conflict between the right of residence of the woman-as part of the alimony-and the right of heirs to inherit the property of the deceased. In the meantime, some of the scholars like Saheb Javaher proposed the theory of revolution in alimony. In contrast, the majority of jurisprudents hold that the wife has the priority right of residence. After evaluating the arguments of the jurisprudents and the proposed theories, the findings of the study showed that contrary to the famous beliefs, after proving alimony for the woman relying on the advent of the proofs of the verses and traditions, this alimony is placed in the third group of the category of "conjugality alimony” but not the alimony itself. In the issue of conflict of the right of residence after the death of man, the claim of the theory of revolution of waiting time cannot be fulfilled due to the priority of the effect of the verse, on the other hand it sustains harm to the wife and the fetus which is not allowed based on no-harm rule.

Gender socialization, as one of the most basic types of socialization, affects a person's individual and social life, including the stability of his or her marital life. The aim of this study was to explain the relationship between gender socialization and DIVORCE between 178 DIVORCEd women and 222 women with emotional DIVORCE, which was conducted by survey method in Bandar Abbas. This study used biological and social theories to explain gender socialization and theories of structural functionalism and the love triangle to explain DIVORCE. In the present study, simple and stratified random sampling proportional to volume was used for women with emotional DIVORCE and chain sampling was used for DIVORCEd women. Questionnaire data were collected through interviews and face validity was confirmed through literature review and expert judgment, structural validity was confirmed by factor analysis and its reliability was confirmed by Cronbach's alpha. The results showed that gender socialization of 29.4% of DIVORCEd women and 70.6% of women with emotional DIVORCE is traditional, and on the other hand 60.2% of DIVORCEd women and 39.8% of women with emotional DIVORCE, Had a modern gender socialization. According to the results of Chi-square test, there is a significant relationship between the type of gender socialization of women, gender values, gender inequality and power relations with the type of DIVORCE. Accordingly, women with emotional DIVORCE have a more traditional outlook than DIVORCEd women.

From long ago DIVORCE has been accepted in laws and cultures with certain limits and constraints. Also in Islam DIVORCE has got specific sentences and conditions and religious scholars have spent centuries to investigate and explain it. The fact that civil laws are derived from religious orders has not been ignored on the matter of DIVORCE and includes those orders derives from jurisprudence scripts, although we sometimes observe silence and legal gaps or ambiguity in legal acts and this fact is seen throughout some cases of DIVORCE, including mandatory DIVORCE and minor DIVORCE which their nature and orders have been clearly described, but the law has kept silence on determining its origin and type. For that matter and to solve problems and commentary on legal acts on this subject, reviewing from jurisprudence way and its implementation to the low has been a big help and has short its similarities and differences. This article has been edited for that purpose and acknowledges mandatory DIVORCE as revocable and minor DIVORCE as IRREVOCABLE.

According to the Iranian rules, DIVORCE is within the jurisdiction of the husband, and only in special cases is the wife entitled to request DIVORCE from the court, which is called ‘judicial DIVORCE". The issue that matters in the discussion of judicial DIVORCE is its nature; which may bring different effects. There is a disagreement about the nature of judicial DIVORCE; some believe that it is a revocable DIVORCE while some others consider it as IRREVOCABLE. The arguments of both sides indicate significant and fundamental flaws.The third viewpoint presented proportionate to the characteristics of judicial DIVORCE in this paper is that this kind of DIVORCE is to be considered as ‘IRREVOCABLE in kind’.This viewpoint not only removes the defects of the previous opinions, but also offers a fundamental step towards the protection of the family structure, the preservation of women rights and the prevention of probable abuse by men. 

An IRREVOCABLE agency is the kind in which the client can’ t revoke his/her contract from his/her agency as an obligatory outcome condition of the main agency contract. However, setting the condition in a manner that cannot be dismissed, doesn’ t change the nature of the agency from permission to an eternal phenomenon. With such a condition, the client merely cannot dismiss the agent but for other kinds of permissible contracts, such as its dissolution due to the death and insanity of both sides, it won’ t be influential. This article aims to highlight the lacks and weaknesses of IRREVOCABLE agency and presents a new pattern capable for replacing it. The proposed template is a "transfer of sale right contract'' which is qualified enough to compete with death and insanity. ''Right of sale" as one of the components of property right, has the necessary capabilities to replace the permission and representation. The main idea of the author is based on the fact that this capability should be proved and taken into account by the existing legal capacity so that any possible shortcomings may be solved by the legislator.

According to the law, upon the marriage, the husband is obligated to pay alimony to the wife and this legal obligation continues until the end of marital relationship, but in some cases despite of DIVORCE and disbandment of marriage relation, the spouse's obligation to pay alimony continues. According to the Article 1109 of the Civil Code, in the case of revocable DIVORCE absolutely and in all circumstances, and in IRREVOCABLE DIVORCE and termination of marriage, if the wife is pregnant, alimony must certainly be paid by husband. The purpose of this study is to determine the entitled alimony for pregnant women, which has been done by descriptive-analytical and inferential methods and by collecting data in a library. In this regard two main views have been proposed; some believe the pregnant woman is entitled to receive alimony and others believe that the unborn child is, and they cited to the specific reasons to prove their point of view. The first view was followed by the legislator. Although accepting this point of view is more suitable, but, the interests of the fetus require that an independent legal system be established to guarantee fetal alimony. The alimony which is paid by the husband to DIVORCEd woman in the waiting period of DIVORCE (Oddah) is the effects of previous marriage that still exists. When the alimony is paid to DIVORCEe, she benefits it directly and the unborn child indirectly benefits from it indirectly.

Jurists and lawyers allocated the Right of rescission-that it is rule of general contract law-to the IRREVOCABLE contract. This means legal acts lacking in " contractual " and " IRREVOCABLE " characteristics do not entail Right of rescission. Adherent of the opinion have provided reasons to proof and strengthen their opinion which to have been accepted by the majority of the scholars of this science. on the other hand a group of jurists and lawyers has argued that right of rescission in revocable contracts shall not impossible or unlikely. . This group have given reasons for its opinion. This article is an attempt to understand whether the right of rescission is applicable to revocable and even quasi-IRREVOCABLE contracts. It will review, analyze and examine the mainstream reasonings while considering the counter-arguments.

DIVORCE, as one of the most important social harms to the family institution, has existed in various forms. Among the various forms of DIVORCE, consensual DIVORCE has received the most attention because of its relatively simple and short process. In consensual DIVORCE, couples agree on financial and non-financial matters and by obtaining the certificate of incompatibility, provides the ground for DIVORCE. However, couples may withdraw from the DIVORCE before or after issuing the certificate. Because of the prevalence of consensual DIVORCE, it is necessary to examine the possibility or impossibility of the couples to withdraw from the DIVORCE, before or after issuing the said certificate. In general, it seems that in the current legal situation, if the withdrawal from the consensual DIVORCE is before issuing the certificate, the withdrawal with the will of either couples, eliminates the grounds for issuing the certificate. If the withdrawal from the consensual DIVORCE is after issuing the certificate, it seems that 1) the withdrawal of the husband, eliminates the enforceability of the certificate,unless the wife has an IRREVOCABLE mandate in the execution of DIVORCE. 2) The withdrawal of the wife has no effect on the enforceability of the certificate. 3) the withdrawal by the joint will of the couples is irrelevant because of the main role of the husband's will in eliminating the enforceability of the certificate,unless the wife has an IRREVOCABLE mandate in the execution of DIVORCE, in which, the withdrawal by the joint will of the couples will be considereable.

The marriage of a muslim man and a woman who are bonded to different jurisprudential religions causes some disagreements in courts especially regarding personal problems. Triple DIVORCE in one session is one of these issues which is a revocable DIVORCE in Imamiye and is IRREVOCABLE DIVORCE based on the ideas of the most jurists of Sunnah. Based on the survey of this researcher in some border provinces due to the widespread use of triple DIVORCE in one session and the silence of the rule in this issue the difference effects of revocable and IRREVOCABLE DIVORCE and the fact that the DIVORCE is a monolateral right but it affects on both sides, this topic has been selected for the study. We will answer the questions that in performing the triple DIVORCE which side's opinion will be respected and on which basis it must be performed? Although from the viewpoints of shiites one DIVORCE and based on some fatwas no DIVORCE has been performed but based on Sunni religion three DIVORCEs has been performed. This research which has been done using descriptive_analytical method and some library and related software sources tries to find a solution for this religious difference between the Islamic religions the findings reveal that based on obligation rule the place of truth and subordination rule and also in some subsidiaries even the ihtiyat-fi-lfuruj rule in some conditions the problem can be answered.

Attorneyship is a permissible and lawful contract. In this contract, the client or the lawyer may terminate the contract at any time. Achieving a stable and unshakable contract is possible in the light of IRREVOCABLE attorneyship. But even in power of attorney, the client can do something that can lead to the termination of the contract. For example, a client may sell a product that has an IRREVOCABLE sale attorneyship and the contract will then is terminated. To prevent this action by the client, the condition of “ not-performing an act against the case of attorneyship by the client" applies. The present article aims to investigate the validity of this condition and discusses the condition by using a descriptive-analytical method. The findings of the study indicate that the condition of the expiry of the right was considered by jurisprudents to be like a ruling and deprivation of this right is not permissible. However, if the condition is construed to constitute a commitment not to perform an act against the case of attorneyship, it would be flawed and will have the same result.