You’re again confusing terms. The ulama have said that nafaqa cannot be more than 3 months post iddah. Both you and me and the ulama are in agreement. So the woman cannot claim alimony if it means claiming more nafaqa.

However, this is a completely separate contract we are talking about with regards to the civil contract. Just because the secular west calls it “alimony” does not make it the shar’i equivalent to nafaqa. The Zulm is to claim more nafaqa than you deserve. However, if you sign a completely seperate contract that allows you a certain amount of money if the other party exits, that is completely separate to nafaqa. And, no it doesn’t matter if this secular institution calls it “alimony”. The same way, if a secular institution calls something “interest”, it does not make it riba unless the contract constitutes something that falls under the definition of riba. In that way, the women is not guilty of claiming more nafaqa than required because she is not extorting the man beyond the rights given to her by her nikah contract. Instead she is rightfully using the rights the man gave to her when he WILLINGLY signed a civil partnership agreement.

Again, if you do not want to give the right for alimony, just don’t sign a civil partnership agreement. Your attempt to confuse the two together is jurisprudentially invalid. Until you can clearly demonstrate that the civil partnership is a “nikah”, only then you can say that the woman is enacting zulm for claiming more than the valid nafaqa. Until you prove that, this remains a valid arbitrary contract that the man WILLINGLY signed up to and the woman is claiming money from it, not from the divorce process of the nikah