AI generated image used for representative purposeNEW DELHI: Stray instances of living together after separation do not, by themselves, mean that earlier acts of matrimonial cruelty were forgiven, the Calcutta high court has held. The court made the observation while upholding a family court's decision granting divorce to a husband on the ground of mental cruelty, as per a report by Bar and Bench.The couple had married under the Special Marriage Act in June 2009 and had a child in April 2013. They separated in 2014 following matrimonial disputes. The husband later sought divorce, alleging that his wife had made repeated false allegations against him and his family, filed criminal complaints and insisted that he live separately from his dependent widowed mother. The family court granted him divorce in December 2021, following which the wife challenged the order before the high court.Why did the wife argue that the cruelty was forgiven?The wife told the high court that she had returned to the matrimonial home several times after their separation and lived with her husband as his wife for seven to eight days on each occasion. She argued that these instances showed that the husband had forgiven the alleged acts of cruelty.A division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya rejected the argument. The court held that simply living together or having sexual relations after separation could not by itself amount to forgiveness of earlier cruelty."Stray incidents of living together as husband and wife do not amount to condonation," the court said, as quoted by Bar and Bench.The bench also said that forgiving earlier cruelty is not final and depends on the spouse not repeating such behaviour."Condonation is not absolute and is impliedly conditional upon non-repetition of further acts of cruelty, either similar to the earlier acts of cruelty or otherwise, by the condoned spouse," the bench added.The court further made it clear that isolated instances of sexual intercourse after separation could not, by themselves, wipe out earlier acts of cruelty."Stray instances of sexual intercourse after separation cannot tantamount to condonation of cruelty per se," the court further added, as quoted by Bar and Bench.The high court found that the wife had made several serious allegations against her husband and his family without sufficient supporting evidence. These included allegations of dowry demands, misuse of her parental property, forcible abortion and improper behaviour by her mother-in-law towards the couple's child.The bench said serious and baseless allegations that damage a spouse's reputation or character can themselves amount to mental cruelty.The court also considered the wife's demand that her husband live separately from his dependent widowed mother. It noted that society had moved away from the idea that a wife must necessarily serve her husband and his family. However, the court said this approach could not be taken so far that it became unreasonable."However, such liberal approach cannot be taken to such an extreme that it itself becomes a conservative dogma," the court said.The wife had justified her demand for separate residence by alleging that her mother-in-law had molested the couple's minor son. The court, however, found no document, witness or complaint made at the relevant time to support the allegation.The court also observed that a demand for separate residence cannot be considered in isolation from the circumstances of the family.The high court accordingly upheld the divorce granted by the family court on the ground of mental cruelty. It, however, clarified that the wife would remain free to independently seek permanent alimony.