{"id":394812,"date":"2026-09-01T15:30:22","date_gmt":"2026-09-01T10:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=394812"},"modified":"2026-09-03T09:53:56","modified_gmt":"2026-09-03T04:23:56","slug":"calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/01\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Calcutta High Court: Stray instances of living together after separation do not amount to “condonation of cruelty” in divorce proceedings"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Calcutta High Court:<\/span> In a first appeal filed by wife (appellant) against a divorce decree passed in favour of her husband (respondent), on the ground of cruelty, contending that the ingredients of mental cruelty were not made out as Section 27(1)(d<\/span>)<\/a>, Special Marriage Act<\/a> operates on the principle of fault, which was not established in the present case, a Division Bench of Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya, JJ., dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of divorce dated 30 December 2021 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Calcutta, holding that the appellant-wife was guilty of mental cruelty and that the marriage had broken down irretrievably. The Court accordingly dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce, while clarifying that the judgment would not preclude the appellant-wife from seeking permanent alimony before the jurisdictional court.<\/p>\n

The appellant and respondent were married under the Special Marriage Act on 18 June 2009, and a child was born to them on 15 April 2013. The appellant’s case is that the marriage was cordial for several years and that the parties continued to live together as spouses even after periods of separation. According to her, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home amid disputes concerning the respondent’s family, particularly his widowed mother, and she sought separate residence primarily to protect herself and the minor child from alleged mistreatment. The appellant has also alleged that she was subjected to a forced termination of pregnancy in January 2014, that her jewellery and other matrimonial articles were retained by the respondent’s family, and that she was subjected to abusive behaviour and assault by the respondent. She consequently initiated, among other proceedings, criminal proceedings and proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/a>. She maintains that her conduct, including her complaints to the police and her insistence on separate residence, cannot by itself constitute mental cruelty and that she remained willing to resume cohabitation with the respondent.<\/p>\n

The respondent-husband, on the other hand, alleges that it was the appellant’s persistent conduct that caused the breakdown of the matrimonial relationship. He contends that she repeatedly insisted that he sever ties with his widowed mother, who was dependent upon him, threatened to initiate false criminal proceedings against him and his family, and repeatedly visited his business premises where she allegedly abused and humiliated him in the presence of customers and damaged articles. He disputes the appellant’s allegations of forced abortion, misappropriation of her parental property, retention of jewellery and mistreatment of the minor child, pointing to the absence of contemporaneous complaints or supporting evidence and, in relation to the jewellery, the receipt admittedly signed by the appellant. He further relies upon the criminal case instituted by the appellant alleging assault, in which he was subsequently acquitted for want of proof and medical evidence. The parties have lived separately since 26 December 2014, have been involved in multiple litigations, and court-directed mediation has failed. On this foundation, the respondent asserts that the cumulative effect of the appellant’s conduct amounts to mental cruelty and that the prolonged separation and continuing disputes demonstrate an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.<\/p>\n

On the issue whether the appellant-wife is guilty of mental cruelty<\/span>, the Court noted the broad principles for establishing mental cruelty are that there must be sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or a departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness, of such intensity as to go beyond the ordinary wear and tear of married life and make it impossible to reasonably expect the spouses to continue living together; stray instances of sexual intercourse after separation do not, by themselves, amount to condonation of cruelty, as condonation remains conditional upon the non-repetition of further acts of cruelty; there can be no exhaustive catalogue of circumstances constituting mental cruelty, and the Court must assess the matrimonial relationship as a whole, having regard to the parties’ social status, educational background and surrounding circumstances; and where one spouse makes unfounded, unsubstantiated or baseless allegations of a grave and serious nature, which attack the character of the other spouse, publicly demean them or cause serious mental agony, such allegations may themselves constitute mental cruelty.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court found that the appellant-wife’s insistence on separate residence from the respondent-husband’s widowed and dependent mother amounted to cruelty, as the allegation of molestation of the minor son, on which such insistence was based, was found to be wholly unsubstantiated and unsupported by any independent or contemporaneous evidence. The Court further noted that the appellant had levelled serious allegations against the respondent, including misappropriation of her parental property, dowry demands and forcible retention of her ornaments, without adequate pleadings or supporting material. Her credibility was also found to be weakened by contradictions in her evidence, the receipt for her ornaments, which she admitted having written and signed, and her denial that the respondent had arranged her medical treatment, despite subsequently admitting in cross-examination that he had done so at several hospitals.<\/p>\n

The Court also considered the criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant alleging assault by the respondent, noting that the respondent was acquitted for want of supporting witness and medical evidence. It further took into account the respondent’s allegations that the appellant repeatedly visited his business premises, used filthy language, damaged instruments and humiliated him in the presence of customers, as well as the admitted quarrel when the respondent and his relatives went to the appellant’s residence to bring her back. The Court held that the appellant’s conduct, viewed cumulatively, reflected a consistent course of making serious but baseless allegations and subjecting the respondent and his family to humiliation. The fact that the parties had occasionally resumed cohabitation after separation did not amount to condonation of cruelty, particularly since condonation is conditional upon non-repetition of such conduct. Consequently, the Court concluded that the appellant-wife was guilty of mental cruelty, furnishing a valid ground for divorce.<\/span><\/p>\n

On the issue whether the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and, if so, whether the same furnishes a ground for divorce<\/span>, the Court noted that although the parties had lived together for about 5 years, they had remained separated and had effectively parted ways for nearly 11 years, with court-referred mediation also having failed. Relying on Samar Ghosh<\/span> v. Jaya Ghosh<\/span>, (2007) 4 SCC 511<\/a> and Rakesh Raman<\/span> v. Kavita<\/span>, (2023) 17 SCC 433<\/a>, the Court observed that while irretrievable breakdown by itself is not an independent statutory ground for divorce, a marital relationship that has become persistently bitter and acrimonious inflicts cruelty on both spouses, and keeping such a broken marriage alive would itself amount to injustice. Since the provisions relating to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act are similar, the Court held that the principle in Rakesh Raman<\/span>, applies equally in the present case. Accordingly, the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, coupled with the mental cruelty already established against the appellant-wife, furnished a valid ground for dissolution of the marriage.<\/p>\n

On the issue of whether the absence of any formal decree dismissing the counterclaim of the appellant-wife vitiates the impugned judgment<\/span>, the Court noted that once the trial court had found the appellant-wife guilty of mental cruelty and further held that the marriage had broken down irretrievably with no scope for reconciliation, there could be no occasion to grant restitution of conjugal rights and the dismissal of the counterclaim was merely a formality. Accordingly, the absence of a specific recital in the operative portion of the judgment or decree expressly dismissing the counterclaim did not vitiate the impugned judgment, particularly when the trial court had substantively considered and rejected the possibility of restoring the matrimonial relationship. The issue was therefore decided against the appellant.<\/p>\n

On the issue of whether the appellant’s application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code ought to be allowed<\/span>, the Court noted that none of the requirements of the provision were satisfied. The appellant had failed to explain why the prescription, which related to the alleged forced abortion and had remained in her own custody, was not produced despite ample opportunity during the trial, thereby failing to establish due diligence. Further, the prescription merely evidenced termination of pregnancy and, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, could not establish that the termination was forced or carried out at the respondent-husband’s instance. The Court also noted that the appellant had subsequently embellished her pleadings by alleging repeated forced intercourse and abortions, which remained wholly unsubstantiated. Relying on the limited scope of Order 41 Rule 27 and distinguishing Sathyanath<\/span> v. Sarojamani<\/span>, (2022) 7 SCC 644<\/a>, the Court held that the additional document was neither necessary for pronouncing judgment nor capable of serving any useful purpose and accordingly dismissed the application.<\/p>\n

[Munmun Karmakar Ghosh<\/span> v. Abhishek Karmakar<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 12448<\/a>, decided on 21-8-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the appellant:<\/span> Mr. Sanjay Mukherjee, Mr. Purnendu Das, Mr. Kinjal Kr. Barai<\/p>\n

For the respondent:<\/span> Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty, Mr. Rajib Ray, Ms. Suparna Deb, Mr. Sumit Roy<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the landmark judgment of N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326<\/a>, the Supreme Court held condonation of cruelty under Section 23(1), Hindu Marriage Act and the corresponding provisions of the Special Marriage Act, a mitigating factor in grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67516,"featured_media":394813,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[113556,113554,57522,37675,48772,8391,29789,113555],"class_list":["post-394812","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-cohabitation-after-separation","tag-condonation-of-cruelty","tag-cruelty-as-a-ground-for-divorce","tag-divorce-proceedings","tag-matrimonial-cruelty","tag-mental-cruelty","tag-special-marriage-act","tag-stray-instances-of-cohabitation"],"yoast_head":"\nStray cohabitation does not condone cruelty: Calcutta HC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Calcutta High Court holds that stray instances of living together after separation do not amount to condonation of cruelty in divorce proceedings.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/01\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Calcutta High Court: Stray instances of living together after separation do not amount to \u201ccondonation of cruelty\u201d in divorce proceedings\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Calcutta High Court holds that stray instances of living together after separation do not amount to condonation of cruelty in divorce proceedings.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/01\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-09-01T10:00:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-09-03T04:23:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/condonation-of-cruelty.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arunima\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Calcutta High Court: Stray instances of living together after separation do not amount to “condonation of cruelty” in divorce proceedings\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arunima\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Arunima\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\"},\"headline\":\"Calcutta High Court: Stray instances of living together after separation do not amount to “condonation of cruelty” in divorce proceedings\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-01T10:00:22+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-03T04:23:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1509,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/condonation-of-cruelty.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"cohabitation after separation\",\"condonation of cruelty\",\"cruelty as a ground for divorce\",\"Divorce Proceedings\",\"Matrimonial Cruelty\",\"mental cruelty\",\"Special Marriage Act\",\"stray instances of cohabitation\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\\\/\",\"name\":\"Stray cohabitation does not condone cruelty: Calcutta HC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/condonation-of-cruelty.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-01T10:00:22+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-03T04:23:56+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\"},\"description\":\"Calcutta High Court holds that stray instances of living together after separation do not amount to condonation of cruelty in divorce proceedings.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/condonation-of-cruelty.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/condonation-of-cruelty.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"condonation of cruelty\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/01\\\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Calcutta High Court: Stray instances of living together after separation do not amount to “condonation of cruelty” in divorce proceedings\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\",\"name\":\"Arunima\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arunima\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/scc-editor_9\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Stray cohabitation does not condone cruelty: Calcutta HC | SCC Times","description":"Calcutta High Court holds that stray instances of living together after separation do not amount to condonation of cruelty in divorce proceedings.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/01\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Calcutta High Court: Stray instances of living together after separation do not amount to \u201ccondonation of cruelty\u201d in divorce proceedings","og_description":"Calcutta High Court holds that stray instances of living together after separation do not amount to condonation of cruelty in divorce proceedings.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/01\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-09-01T10:00:22+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-09-03T04:23:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/condonation-of-cruelty.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arunima","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Calcutta High Court: Stray instances of living together after separation do not amount to “condonation of cruelty” in divorce proceedings","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arunima","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/01\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/01\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\/"},"author":{"name":"Arunima","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb"},"headline":"Calcutta High Court: Stray instances of living together after separation do not amount to “condonation of cruelty” in divorce proceedings","datePublished":"2026-09-01T10:00:22+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-03T04:23:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/01\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\/"},"wordCount":1509,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/01\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/condonation-of-cruelty.webp","keywords":["cohabitation after separation","condonation of cruelty","cruelty as a ground for divorce","Divorce Proceedings","Matrimonial Cruelty","mental cruelty","Special Marriage Act","stray instances of cohabitation"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/01\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/01\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/01\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\/","name":"Stray cohabitation does not condone cruelty: Calcutta HC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/01\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/01\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/condonation-of-cruelty.webp","datePublished":"2026-09-01T10:00:22+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-03T04:23:56+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb"},"description":"Calcutta High Court holds that stray instances of living together after separation do not amount to condonation of cruelty in divorce proceedings.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/01\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/01\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/01\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/condonation-of-cruelty.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/condonation-of-cruelty.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"condonation of cruelty"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/01\/calcutta-high-court-stray-instances-living-together-condonation-of-cruelty-divorce-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Calcutta High Court: Stray instances of living together after separation do not amount to “condonation of cruelty” in divorce proceedings"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb","name":"Arunima","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arunima"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor_9\/"}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/condonation-of-cruelty.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/394812","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67516"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=394812"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/394812\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":394995,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/394812\/revisions\/394995"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/394813"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=394812"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=394812"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=394812"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}