What is the ruling on a man who tells people that he has divorced his wife, but he has not actually divorced her?

Question : The questioner says: If a man tells people that he has divorced his wife, but he has not pronounced a real divorce, is his wife considered divorced from him?

Answer : If a man says that he has divorced his wife, and he intended to report a past event but did not actually divorce her, then the report here is a lie and the woman is not divorced. However, let him know that if the woman sues him before a judge, the judge will rule for her divorce, because he testified against himself that he divorced her. If she brings it to the judge, he will say, "I do not rule except by what I hear," based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "I only judge based on what I hear." Pay attention: A man said to his companion, or his friend, or in the gathering, that he had divorced his wife, intending to report a past matter, not to pronounce a divorce now, and he is lying. Is the woman divorced? No, she is not divorced. Rather, we say this statement is a lie, because he reported that he divorced her when he did not. But if the woman holds him to this statement and then brings the matter to the judge, what will the judge rule?
He will rule for the divorce, because he admitted it against himself. And at that point, we say: Is it better for the woman to bring the matter to the judge so that he rules according to the implication of his words, or should she not bring the matter to the judge?
No, there is a distinction here. If the husband is truthful and has not been tried in lying, and he said he intended to report what did not happen—meaning he intended to lie—it is not permissible for her to bring him to the judge, because if she brought him to the judge, he would rule for the divorce, and she believes the man is truthful. But if the man is one who is careless with divorce and claims he intended to report rather than pronounce or admit, then it is obligatory for her to bring him to the judge. It is obligatory, especially if this was the final divorce. And if she complains, saying, "I swear to Allah, I do not know if he is truthful or lying," then she should remain with the original state. Remaining with the original state means that the divorce did not take place and that she does not sue him.
On this occasion, I would like to warn people against playing with divorce. Playing with divorce is not a trivial matter. Marriage is not like other contracts. Other contracts, as you know, such as sales, can be concluded without witnesses, and a sale can be concluded by a woman without a guardian, and it differs greatly from marriage. Likewise, the annulment of a sale. But marriage and divorce are matters of great gravity. Therefore, it is not permissible for a person to be hasty or to play with marriage or divorce due to the seriousness of the matter. Yes.