יח מִי שֶׁהִתְנָה עִם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִתְחַיֵּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ וְכֵן הִיא לֹא תִּתְחַיֵּב לוֹ בְּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, אִם אַחַר כָּךְ רָצָה וְנִתְחַיֵּב הוּא לָתֵת לָהּ (בְּמַתָּנָה) מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ, אֵין מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ שֶׁלּוֹ. הַגָּה: אִשָּׁה שֶׁשָּׁתְקָה וְלֹא תָּבְעָה מְזוֹנוֹת וְלֹא מָעָה כֶּסֶף, מִן הַסְּתָם מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ עִם הַמּוֹתָר שֶׁלָּהּ, וְלֹא אָמְרִינָן שֶׁמָּחֲלָה מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ (הָרַ"ן פֶּרֶק אַף עַל פִּי); אֲבָל מַה שֶּׁאֵינוֹ מַסְפִּיק לָהּ, אֵין הַבַּעַל צָרִיךְ לְשַׁלֵּם לָהּ, דְּוַדַּאי מָחֲלָה. אִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלְכָה מִבֵּית בַּעֲלָהּ מִכֹּחַ קְטָטָה, וְאֵינָהּ רוֹצָה לָשׁוּב לְבֵיתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּקְרָא לָהּ בַּעֲלָהּ, לֹא הִפְסִידָה מִשּׁוּם זֶה מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ, דְּבוֹשָׁה מִמֶּנּוּ לָשׁוּב, מֵאַחַר שֶׁיָּצְאָה בְּלֹא רְשׁוּתוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מַרְאֶה לָהּ פָּנִים, וְאִם הוּא יָבוֹא אֶצְלָהּ אֵינָהּ מוֹנַעְתּוֹ מִכְּלוּם; אֲבָל אִם אֵינָהּ רוֹצָה לָבוֹא אֶצְלוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּפְרַע מַה שֶׁלָּוְתָה, אִבְּדָה מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ, דְּהָוֵי כְּמוֹרֶדֶת, דְּכָל מוֹרֶדֶת טַעֲנָה אִית לָהּ. וְכָל אִשָּׁה יֵשׁ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין כְּתֻבָּתָהּ בְּיָדָהּ, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּחֲלָה לוֹ, רַק בִּרְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה; וַאֲפִלּוּ עַל מְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁעָבְרוּ, אִם לֹא טָעַן לֹא טַעֲנִינָן לֵהּ, וְצָרִיךְ לִשָּׁבַע שֶׁמָּחֲלָה לוֹ (כָּל זֶה בִּתְשׁוּבַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"א הוּבְאָה בַּבֵּית יוֹסֵף סִימָן ע"ז):
18 A man who made a condition with his wife that he would not be responsible for her sustenance and similarly she would not be required to hand over the fruits of her labor, if he subsequently desired to do so and agreed to be responsible for her sustenance Rema: as a gift, he does not [automatically] receive the fruits of her labor. Rema: A woman who was silent and did not claim her sustenance or [weekly allowance of] one ma'ah silver coin, we presume that she retains the rights to her [basic] labor along with any extra labor, and we do not say that she relinquished her rights to her labor (Ran chapter Af Al Pi). But that which is not sufficient for her (i.e. she did not earn enough to satisfy her needs), the husband is not required to pay, for she certainly relinquished her rights. A woman who left her husband's house due to a squabble, and does not want to return to his house until he calls her back, she does not lose her sustenance, for she is embarrassed to return after she left without his permission and he does not show her [a kind] face, and if he were to come to her, she would not deny him anything. But if she does not want to return to him until he repays her loans (that she borrowed to purchase food), she thereby loses support, for she has a status of a rebellious wife, and every rebellious wife has some complaint (rather she should first return and then settle accounts). Every wife has rights to sustenance even if she does not have possession of her ketuba, and he is not believed with a claim that she relinquished her rights to him, except with clear proof. And even with respect to [unpaid] support in the past, if he does not argue [that he was not required to pay] we do not argue for him, and he must swear that she relinquished her rights [to sustenance] (All this is in Responsa Rashba, cited in Beit Yosef chapter 77).