You don't have to pay her, that's what most of the arbitrators did, and that's how it turns out, and what's more, there's no doubt about it.
Sources: It seems that the definition of the woman's belonging in the provision of challah is forward to the husband, and in the Shu'a C. Raseg sag that the women are warned in it more than the men, and for the reason that the Shu'a is busy with the needs of the house and for the reason that the Shu'a the Mishnav names the skiv of his bed Neru of Olam and so it is in the column there, and LPFZ 55 a shell that is impure, the shell of Olam as the Mishnav C. Rambam SKO, and it is from B. R. P. 17 and Nachuma R. P. Noach (and O. Shabbat not EB), and as we noted that the ruling is valid, we learn from the Mishnah together with the lighting of the candle that the women are warned about it more, as is proven in the Rec'a in the second chapter of Rasag there, Iash, and it is also proven in the GCC already in Raban Shabbat 13 A that women are warned More so in the case, but not that the duty was forfeited from the husband and given to the wife, and in any case since the husband also belongs positively and only has a future for his wife, we do not find that it is possible to claim ten gold pieces.
And even though there are those who took the Hala Vanda and lighting the candle as a part of the customs of her father's house and not a part of the husband's customs, namely because she is supposed to do it, but when the husband does it, it is considered a complete obligation for him and as a commandment that he is bound by from all the obligations imposed on him because of his possessions and food.
And once again I saw that at the opening of the Devir Och C. Rasg S.A. he brought in the name of the Yabetz that one who steals a Shabbat candle from his wife should pay her ten gold pieces, except that indeed in the offering that H.G. Now that in the 28th century, in the name of the holder, there is a letter C that does not need to be paid 10 gold coins.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 4673