335 Pa. Super. 41, 483 A.2d 945 (1984)
On June 2, 1980, Robert Thomas filed a complaint for divorce based upon indignities.1 On July 22, 1980, Ruth Thomas filed an application to proceed under the new Divorce Code, which the trial court granted.2 On December 19, 1980, she filed a petition for counseling, and the trial court ordered the parties to participate in counseling sessions, which they completed.3
Robert Thomas moved out of the marital residence on March 1, 1980.4 On May 6, 1983, he filed an amended complaint and affidavit pursuant to Section 201(d) alleging that the parties had lived separate and apart for three years and that their marriage was irretrievably broken.5 On May 20, 1983, Ruth Thomas filed a counter-affidavit denying that the parties had lived separate and apart for three years.6 A hearing was held before the trial court on August 15, 1983.7
At the hearing, Robert Thomas testified that he returned to the marital residence numerous times to visit his son and that the parties engaged in sexual intercourse approximately a dozen times during the separation period.8 He stated that his visits were prompted by suggestions of the marriage counselor and his wife's threats to curtail his visits with their son.9 Ruth Thomas testified that the parties engaged in sexual intercourse approximately 33 times during the separation and that it was her feeling that the sexual activities were attempts at making the marriage work.10 She stated that her husband told her that he was mixed up and that she initiated a few of his visits.11 Both parties testified that the last sexual encounter occurred in December of 1982.12
On August 22, 1983, the trial court filed a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the divorce.13 Appellant's exceptions to the order were dismissed by the court en banc, and the order denying the divorce was approved on October 17, 1983.14 This appeal timely followed.15
Whether isolated acts of sexual intercourse during a three-year separation period constitute cohabitation, thereby defeating a claim that the parties have lived separate and apart for three years in accordance with Section 201(d) of the Divorce Code?16
Cohabitation means the mutual assumption of those rights and duties attendant to the relationship of husband and wife, and instances of sexual relations during a separation period do not, without more, defeat a claim that the parties have lived separate and apart for purposes of Section 201(d).17
No. Applying the rule to the established facts, Robert Thomas moved out of the marital residence on March 1, 1980, and the parties thereafter maintained separate residences.18 Although the parties engaged in sexual intercourse a dozen or more times during the separation period, with the last encounter occurring in December 1982, Robert Thomas's visits were prompted by the marriage counselor and his wife's threats regarding their son, and he never remained overnight after intercourse.19 There was no evidence that the parties resumed other aspects of the marital relationship beyond these isolated encounters.20 The sexual relations therefore did not constitute cohabitation.21
Isolated acts of sexual intercourse during the separation period do not constitute cohabitation and do not defeat the claim for a unilateral divorce under Section 201(d).22