Judicial practice in Iran in disputes concerning Alimony (Nafaqah) and marital obedience is characterized by analytical inconsistency and foundational divergence, as family courts adopt differing-and sometimes incompatible-approaches in conceptualizing the relationship among maintenance, obedience, and Nushuz (marital disobedience). This study examines which analytical framework governing this relationship is more defensible in terms of conceptual coherence, proper allocation of the burden of proof, and judicial efficiency. Employing a descriptive–analytical method and drawing upon Imami jurisprudence, the structure of Iranian civil law, and a systematic review of judicial decisions, the article argues that conflicting rulings in similar cases arise less from factual disagreement or statutory ambiguity than from conceptual displacement in judicial reasoning and the conflation of the categories of “cause,” “condition,” and “impediment.” Three dominant models are reconstructed and critically assessed: maintenance as a direct effect of marriage (cause-based), obedience as a condition of entitlement (condition-based), and Nushuz as an impediment to entitlement (impediment-based). The findings indicate that the condition-based model, by prioritizing behavioral assessment over stabilization of the right and implicitly shifting the burden of proof to the wife, contributes significantly to inconsistency and diminished legal certainty. In contrast, the impediment-based model, which presumes entitlement to maintenance and limits its forfeiture to duly established Nushuz, aligns more closely with Articles 1102 and 1108 of the Iranian Civil Code and with the protective rationale of maintenance. Accordingly, the article proposes a four-stage judicial decision-making protocol to enhance coherence, predictability, and principled adjudication.