Return to Answer

Verse (4:34) clearly shows that violence or beating (even softly as stated by scholars) is the last choice after taking former steps! So a husband can't come and beat his wife unless she went ahead with her nushuz نشوز:

Verse (4:34) clearly shows that violence or beating (even softly as stated by scholars) is the last choice after taking former steps! So a husband can't come and beat his wife unless she went ahead with her nushuz نشوز after the two former steps:

which my be translated: "If a woman (wife) prayed her five (obligatory prayers), and fasted her month (Ramadan), and guarded her private parts (from zina), and obeyed (followed the orders of) her husband, she will enter paradise (jannah) from whatever door she wants"

which may be translated: "If a woman (wife) prayed her five (obligatory prayers), and fasted her month (Ramadan), and guarded her private parts (from zina), and obeyed (followed the orders of) her husband, she will enter paradise (jannah) from whatever door she wants"

Note that basically fulfiling the conditions of agreed contracts is binding according the qur'an (5:1) and sunnah. But I found especially on islamqa self-contradictory fatwas when it comes to some conditions of the wife. So if the wife agreed on all of this she is asked to respect those rules and conditions, however they are far away of being imposed by shari'a, but one may ask what happens if a husband didn't follow the conditions of his wifes and acted opposed to that, could the wife do the same?

So far these comments are only based on shari'a without any relation to the rule saying "obey the law of the land" based on fulfilling contracts (5:1) (see What are counter arguments for those who do not admit to the laws of a secular countries?) as @Kilise reminded me in the comment!
Of course the husband can define his home as a separate caliphate and apply them there, and there only ;)!
Rejecting the contract is of course theoretically possible, but usually marriage contracts of Muslims are only made in Muslim countries, I've witnessed a marriage where no contract was made -in means of quoting mahr conditions of spouses etc.-, so I only know that in Morocco a contract is prescribed by the authorities (even if not always applied in some rural environments), so in practice the chance is few that such a contract would have any official value in a non-Muslim country.

So far these comments are only based on shari'a without any relation to the rule saying "obey the law of the land" based on fulfilling contracts (5:1) (see What are counter arguments for those who do not admit to the laws of a secular countries?) as @Kilise reminded me in the comment!
Of course the husband can define his home as a separate caliphate and apply them there, and there only ;)!
Rejecting the contract is of course theoretically possible, but usually marriage contracts of Muslims are only made in Muslim countries, I've witnessed a marriage where no contract was made -in means of quoting mahr conditions of spouses etc.-, so I only know that in Morocco a contract is prescribed by the authorities (even if not always applied in some rural environments), so in practice the chance is few that such a contract -as described- would have any official value in a non-Muslim country.