What is the ruling on the divorce of a man who claims not to remember the first divorce, while his wife confirms its occurrence?

The husband's statement is considered valid regarding the occurrence of divorce, as he holds to the original state, and the original state is the continuation of the marriage and the absence of divorce. This is the view of the majority of scholars. However, if the wife is certain that a divorce has occurred and that he uttered the triple divorce, while the husband claims it was only two divorces, then his word is accepted. Nevertheless, it is not permissible for the wife to allow him intimacy, because that would be enabling fornication. The wife, like a judge, is not permitted to allow the husband intimacy if she knows from him what contradicts his claim. So, if two men testify to her that he divorced her, or if she heard him divorce her while he denies it, she cannot remain with him and must not allow him intimacy. If a divorce occurs after this third divorce, she is not lawful for him in any way unless she marries another husband. She must either flee from him or ransom herself from him with money.