Bukhari

Hadith Commentary: Benefits and Issues: If a person takes such an oath that, by insisting upon it or remaining stubborn, his wife and children are subjected to harm and hardship, and the act itself is not a sin or disobedience, and he insists on the oath thinking that breaking the oath is sinful, then this is merely his own opinion and notion. In such a case, the sin lies in insisting upon the oath, not in breaking it. Here, the word "aatham" (more sinful) is used in the comparative form according to his perception, because he considers breaking the oath to be a sin, or it is used as ‘ala sabeel al-tanazzul (for the sake of argument), that if, hypothetically, breaking the oath is a sin, then causing harm and hardship to the family is an even greater sin. And one can avoid the sin of breaking the oath by giving its expiation (kaffarah); but what way is there to remove the harm and hardship caused to them? And the comparative form can also be used in the sense of mere increase, meaning that this insistence is a cause of sin for him. And the word "ahl" (family) is general in its meaning; otherwise, insisting on an oath that causes harm and hardship to anyone, on the basis that "I have sworn an oath, I cannot break it," is not correct. He should break the oath and pay its expiation.

The expiation (kaffarah) for breaking an oath is to feed ten needy people with average food, or to clothe them, or to free a slave. If he cannot do any of these three things, then he must fast for three days. ()