Emu Vrs Arthur [2023] GHACC 358 (14 April 2023)

IN CIRCUIT COURT ‘1’ HELD AT TAKORADI, WESTERN REGION ON FRIDAY 14TH APRIL, 2023 BEFORE HIS HONOUR MICHAEL K. AMPADU, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE. BETWEEN EDWARD EMU AND SUIT NO. C5/37/2019 ….. PETITIONER CAROLINE ARTHUR ….. RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT Petitioner’s Attorney: Present Respondent: present Counsel: Lawyer P. K. Nkrumah for Petitioner Lawyer Emmanuel K. Beckley for Respondent This petition was filed on 15th day of April, 2019 against the Respondent for a dissolution of the Ordinance Marriage which was celebrated on 29th of January, 2015 at the Registry of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly and an order for the custody of the child of the marriage. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent has behaved unreasonably which has resulted in the breakdown of the marriage beyond reconciliation. Petitioner recounts the particulars of unreasonable behaviour as follows: 1. That the Respondent does not respect the Petitioner and members of his family and insults them without cause. 2. The Respondent has been uncooperative with the Petitioner in all their dealings particularly after Petitioner lost his job few months after their marriage as a result of which he states that, the parties have separated and have not lived together as husband and wife with no sexual intimacy between them ever since. 3. The Petitioner states also that the parties, after several efforts, have been unable to reconcile their differences due to the uncooperative stand by the Respondent and her family which sometimes result in physical attacks on the emotions of the Petitioner and that the behaviour of the Respondent has caused and continues to cause the Petitioner pain and distress for which reason the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent as husband and wife and therefore prayed for the orders in the petition. The Respondent in her answer and counterclaim denied the allegations made against her by the Petitioner and stated that the Petitioner proposed love to her when she was Twenty-One years old in 2011 and was a student at the University of Ghana, Legon after which he had amorous relation with her which later led to their marriage after which marriage they cohabited at their matrimonial home on Plot No. 5, Thanksgiving Street, Anaji, Takoradi. It was the answer of the Respondent that in the year 2015, she got pregnant and begot the only child of the marriage, Edward Emu Junior and in 2016, when the child was only a month old, the Petitioner asked her to leave the matrimonial home and spend some time with her mother in Accra to enable her mother assist her cater for the child. That in 2016, April, when she decided to come back to Takoradi to check on the Petitioner because she had not heard from him since she left for Accra, she came to realise to her shock and pain that the Petitioner without informing her, had rented out their bedroom, hall, kitchen, guest room etc to one Pastor Ababio and her belongings were nowhere to be found. She averred that she did her best at the time to locate her husband but could not find him until he appeared briefly with his brother in December, 2016 at Assin Fosu where she and the child had at the time been compelled in the circumstances to take refuge with her brother. She alleged the Petitioner after this appearance disappeared deserting her and the child since February, 2016. It was the contention of the Respondent that the Petitioner has, since February, 2016 failed to maintain her and the child though he has rented out all the rooms of the matrimonial home which is a storey building to tenants. It was the case of the Respondent that she turned down many opportunities including job offers as a young woman because of her zeal of being a good wife to the Petitioner only to be treated and dumped as a chattel causing her pain and anguish. It was the further contention of the Respondent that in 2017, the Petitioners relatives, in his absence, went to her parents with a bottle of drink that he wanted a divorce but her parents insisted on seeing the Petitioner personally and so his parents left only for her to be served with this petition. It is her contention that at all material times, she served the Petitioner and discharged her duties to him as a wife but the Petitioner rather caused her pain. It was her further answer that in the course of their relationship, the Petitioner purchased an uncompleted house on Plot No. 5, Thanksgiving Street, Anaji and upon instructions from the Petitioner, she had to move into one of the rooms in the uncompleted rooms so as to supervise workers who were working on the property because the Petitioner, at all material times, was stationed at his work place at Ayanfuri and after the completion of the matrimonial home, the parties rented the first floor to tenants and she and the Petitioner occupied the basement. The Respondent cross-petitioned for: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. The dissolution of their marriage which was celebrated on the 31st January, 2015. Custody of the child of the marriage. Arrears of maintenance since 2016. An order of the Court settling half of the matrimonial home in favour of the Respondent and the child of the marriage. Lump sum by way of financial provision upon dissolution of the marriage. Order against the Petitioner to pay the child’s school fees and other educational needs and expenses, health, clothing and other expenses incidental to the upkeep of the child. In his evidence-in-chief to the Court, the Petitioner who was represented by an attorney, Harry Akpah told the Court the Petitioner is his brother and that he got married to the Respondent on 29th January, 2015 and that before their marriage, the Petitioner was working whiles the Respondent was a student. According to him, the marriage was peaceful for three months but started going bad after the three months when the Petitioner lost his job and that when this happened, the Respondent did not understand the situation and her character changed. He alleged the Petitioner started to look for a job but around the same time, the Respondent gave birth but due to some reasons, the mother of the Respondent did not come to take care of her. He said due to the disagreement between the parties, the Respondent’s mother came into the matter and advised the parties to try and settle their differences and live together. The Petitioner’s Attorney stated that after giving birth, the Respondent was advised to go and live with her parents so that they will help her take care of the new born baby whiles the Petitioner left to look for a job. According to him, they later heard that when the Respondent went to her parents in Accra, her parents arranged and sent her to live with a relative in Assin Fosu. The Petitioner alleged that he sent some maintenance to the Respondent and the Child when they lived at Assin Fosu even though he had lost his job at the time and not working and when they could not visit her personally, the maintenance was sent to her through her Bank at Ghana Commercial Bank and receipts of such monies were tendered and admitted as exhibits “B series, B-B9” and “C series, C-C1” and that he continued to pay the maintenance even as the matter was pending in this Court. The Petitioner’s attorney alleged that there was a time they visited the Respondent in Assin Fosu and she told them that she was due for National Service and needed money to rent a place at the station she was going to, so the Petitioner and the attorney together gave her One Thousand, Two Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH¢1,200.00) for her to rent a place. It was the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent is not entitled to the counterclaim because the Petitioner built the home in 2013 before marrying the Respondent. That it was bought as an uncompleted house and built to completion later after which it was given out for rent. According to him, the property was purchased and the price was paid in two instalments; one instalment was GH¢50,000.00 and the receipts were tendered and admitted as exhibits “C and C1” without objection. The title deed was admitted as exhibit ‘D’. The Petitioner said he wanted the marriage dissolved and for the child of the marriage, because he is young, prayed that the Respondent takes custody of him with reasonable access to him until he is of age and that the Petitioner has paid all maintenance to the child and does not owe any maintenance again and so prays for a dissolution of the marriage. After his evidence-in-chief, the Petitioner called one witness, Georgina Haizel (PW2). Her evidence was that the Petitioner is her son and that she is aware the parties got married around 2015 and knows also that the marriage has broken down. According to her, the Petitioner came to her one day when she was at the market, because she was a trader, and told her he will not marry again and this happened at a time when the Respondent was pregnant and so she advised the Petitioner not to take that decision. She alleged that when the Respondent gave birth, she tried to support her needs because the Petitioner was not working at the time. It was her further statement that anytime she went to the parties’ house after the Respondent’s delivery, the Respondent said that if her mother will not be allowed to come to the matrimonial home, then she (PW1) should also not come to the house. The PW1 told the Court that she was the person who bathed the child when he was born and anytime she went to bath the child, she saw that all was not well with the parties and when she asked the Petitioner, he told her all was well until one day when she was called by one of her children to go the house of the Petitioner because the Petitioner was deciding to kill himself. She said when she went she met the Petitioner with a bottle of malt so she took it away from him and asked him what was the matter and he told her that he was tired of the marriage. According to her, before the matter came to Court, she and he brother went to Accra three times to meet the parents of the Respondent but in all cases, there were misunderstanding so settlement failed. The evidence of the Respondent is that she is a Fashion Designer and she got married to the Petitioner when she was twenty-four (24) years and she tendered their marriage certificate which was admitted as exhibit ‘1’. That after their marriage, they stayed in a rented apartment at Doctor Tawiah and after a month they moved into a house the Petitioner purchased located at Mpatado in Takoradi, in 2015. According to her, at the time they moved into the house, the house was still under construction and the Petitioner, at the time, was working with a mining company at Dunkwa-On-Offin so she supervised the workers when the workers came to work and that because the Petitioner was away, she had to do the security job. According to her, the materials for the construction were bought before the marriage but after the marriage, she did the supply of the materials to the workers. Respondent stated that it is not true that the house was purchased in a complete state and that she did not play any role in its construction. Respondent said it was not true that the Petitioner lost his job and she did not support him or became disrespectful to him. It was her contention that in 2015, when they moved into the house in Mpatado, the Petitioner came home on holidays in May 2015, four months after the marriage and told her that he was having a problem at his work place so he had to resign. She said prior to the marriage, she has had a cordial relationship with the Petitioner so she asked him the reason why he was resigning but the Petitioner did not tell her except to say that the reason was beyond him so he was coming home. She said because she cared about the situation, she told the Petitioner to let the Lord pick his problems and fight on his behalf but he insisted that he was coming home and that he has been given a lump sum from the work place so he has decided to invest it in other things as they waited for him to get another work. She said the Petitioner bought a truck. According to her the Petitioner also built an office for consultancy business also. In September, she said she was supposed to go and do National Service but the Petitioner decided she should not go because he could not take care of her and himself especially because she was pregnant so consented. She alleged that at this time, even though she was pregnant, she followed the Petitioner to MOPA, a prayer camp in Kumasi together with his brother to pray for him to get a job. It was her evidence that she was due for delivery in November and they both decided that when she delivered, her mother will come and take care of her but later the Petitioner decided that his mother rather should come with a reason that her mother was a witch and when she come, he will not get money to take care of her. She said she agreed and so his mother came when she gave birth and that she did not tell the Petitioner that when her mother is not allowed to come and take care of her, she will not allow any of his family members to come to the house. The Respondent alleged that after they agreed that she left for her father’s house, she left finally on 19/02/2016 and when she got to his father’s house, she tried to communicate with the Petitioner but not often because she believed he was frustrated as a result of his loss of job and sometime also the lines did not go through. According to her, she was to spend a month with her parents so on 10/03/2016, she came back to Takoradi with her son only to come and find out that their apartment has been rented out to one Pastor Ababio. She said she got annoyed because she did not know what was happening so she had to go to the police station to report. That she did not hear from the Petitioner again only to hear later that his family had gone to her family to seek for divorce. She alleged that when she came from Assin Fosu, she did not see her belongings and later she heard from the Petitioner’s attorney that her belongings were with her mother-in-law at SSNIT Flats, Anaji. She decided to go there for her certificate and when she went, she saw her things in one room in the house and the sofa from their matrimonial home was in the Hall. That she did not see the Petitioner when she came from Assin Fosu and the Petitioner did not visit her when she left for her father’s house and the time that she lived in Assin Fosu also. She alleged that since she was asked to leave for her parents’ house to now, she has not had the opportunity to live with the Petitioner as husband and wife. According to her, because the Petitioner was not meeting her, she lived with her brother, Dr. Ignatius Arthur who works at St. Francis Xavier Hospital at Assin Fosu. It was her evidence that at a time, she told the attorney because she was not getting the Petitioner, that she was to do service and needed money for accommodation and so she was given One Thousand, Two Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH¢1,200.00) and that was the only money given to her for accommodation till date. She said the Petitioner, once a while, sent her money but it was not regular and that it is not true that he catered for her and the child; all he gave was for the maintenance of the child. According to her, she was traumatized when she heard that the Petitioner’s family had gone to her family to have the marriage dissolved. She said she was not happy and her prayer was for him to come back to her but now she was no longer interested in the marriage because she does not know what the Petitioner will do to her so she needs the divorce. After her evidence-in-chief, the Respondent called one witness, her father, Anthony Frederick Arthur. The evidence of the DW1 was that, the Respondent was her daughter and knew that in 2014, the Petitioner’s family came to ask for the hand of his daughter in marriage and that was the time when the Respondent was at level 400 in Legon and so they got married in January, 2015 at Dansoman PIWC Church of Pentecost. According to him, the parties came to live in Takoradi after the marriage because the Petitioner lived in Takoradi and after a year, the Respondent called him and told him that she has delivered a baby boy so he decided the Respondent’s mother should come and take care of her but the Petitioner did not agree. He alleged that because the Petitioner refused the Respondent’s mother to come, they decided to come and visit the Respondent and the child. He said when they came to Takoradi, they met the Petitioner’s mother and when they greeted her, she did not even say ‘akwaba’ (welcome) to them and they did not also see the child and when they asked about the child, they were told the child was in the room with the Petitioner but Petitioner did not bring the child for them to see him so they left back to Accra. According to him, not long after that the Respondent called him to say that the Petitioner has asked her to come to him in Accra and when he asked why she was to come to him, the Respondent could not give him any reason but later, the Petitioner also called him and informed him that the Respondent was coming to him and that even though he was worried, he decided to accept the Respondent and asked the brother of the Respondent at Assin Fosu to hire a place for her and the child at Assin Fosu. That a month later, the Respondent came to Takoradi to inspect her belongings at the matrimonial home only to realise that the matrimonial house has been rented out and her belongings were also not located and so she went to her mother-in-law’s house to enquire about the husband and she was told that the Petitioner’s whereabouts was not known. He contended that when the Respondent got this reply from her mother- in-law, she went to report the missing of her husband to the police after which she left back to Assin Fosu. However, when she went back to Assin Fosu, she heard that the husband had travelled. It was the further evidence of the DW1 that after the Respondent had stayed in Assin Fosu for a year, the Petitioner’s family came to Accra that they were coming to dissolve the marriage. According to him, those who came included the Petitioner’s father, mother, his three brothers, one elderly man whom he did not know and another woman from Tema. He said when they came, he asked them what the Respondent had done and he was told she has not done anything so he asked them to go back and reconsider their decision and come back again. He alleged that they came the second time and said they have come to have the marriage dissolved and because they insisted, he asked them to go and pass through the right channels to dissolve the marriage; that they should go and do the legal aspect after that, he will take his drinks. He contended that when he said the above, the elders amongst them got angry and tried to give him the drinks by force and in the process, he was pushed over. That later in 2019, the Respondent called him to say that she has received some letters from Court. He said prior to the coming of the Petitioner’s family to get the marriage dissolved, the Petitioner had not complained about any bad behaviour or anything about her daughter to him. It was held in the case of Ackah vrs. Pergah Transport Ltd. And others (2010) SCGLR 728 at 736 that “…It is trite law that matters that are capable of proof must be proved by producing sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence, a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact is more reasonable than its non-existence”. This is a requirement of the law on evidence under section 10(1) and (2) and 11(1) and (4) of the Evidence Act, 1975, Act 323. It was also held in the case of T. K. Serbeh & Co. Ltd. vrs. Mensah (2005-2006) SCGLR 341 at 360-361 that “… Moreover, the burden of proof rests on the Plaintiff and therefore the Defendant is not obliged to provide evidence to show that the chattel could not be valued at the level claimed by the Plaintiff” Section 2(1)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971, Act 367 provides that: (1) For the purpose of showing that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation, the Petitioner shall satisfy the Court of one or more of the following facts; (b) That the Respondent has behaved in a way that the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent. In the case of Hughes vrs. Hughes (1975) 2GLR at 342, Sarkodie J. in his judgement said “To succeed, the Petitioner must show that the Respondent’s conduct reached a certain degree of severity. It must be such that no reasonable person could tolerate”. The grounds for this petition is the claim of the Petitioner that the Respondent has behaved unreasonably and he mentioned the unreasonable behaviour as that the Respondent does not respect the Petitioner and members of his family and insults them without cause and also that the Respondent has been uncooperative with the Petitioner in all their dealings particularly after Petitioner lost his job four months after the marriage. The Petitioner was required to prove this allegations he made against the Respondent. The evidence of the Petitioner’s attorney was that three months after the marriage, the Petitioner lost his job and so the parties were faced with financial problems, and at times, he the attorney had to help them financially. He alleged that at this time, the Respondent did not understand the situation they were in and her character changed. He stated that the Petitioner started to look for a job but did not get one and got frustrated and in the process, the disagreement between the parties got widened. He continued that the Respondent’s mother, at a point, came into the matter and tried to settle the matter. The evidence of the PW1 who is the mother of the Petitioner is that during the pregnancy of the Respondent, she (PW1) was at the market when the Petitioner called her to say he will not marry again and she advised him not to say that. According to her, the Petitioner said he was going to kill himself and when she asked him of the reason, he told him it was because he was tired of the marriage. From all the above, there is nowhere anybody has been able to tell what behaviour the Respondent has exhibited in their marriage which was unreasonable. This Petitioner was in a relationship with Respondent when she was at level 400 in Legon in 2015. As soon as she completed in the same year, they got married. Before she could even do National Service she got pregnant. Four months into their marriage, the Petitioner lost his job. He did not tell the Respondent what led to the job lost even though she asked him as will be expected of any good wife. When she delivered, the Petitioner did not agree that the Respondent’s mother come and take care of her. The records show that it was the Petitioner’s mother who took care of her and the child and when the Respondent’s parents even came to visit them, they were not welcomed and later she was asked to go and live with her parents for them to take care of her and the new born baby. What is the unreasonable behaviour of the Respondent from the above evidence? The Respondent who is alleged to have exhibited unreasonable behaviour told the Court that she has been at peace with Petitioner since they married. She said when the Petitioner told her he has a problem at his work place four months into their marriage, she asked him what the problem was and the answer was that “the reason was beyond him”. And to show her concern, she told him to let the Lord pick his problem and fight on his behalf. Even though the Respondent was pregnant at the time, she followed the Petitioner and his mother to MOPA, a prayer camp in Kumasi to pray for him to get a new work. Because she realised the pain the Petitioner was going through, she readily agreed to relocate to her parents’ home when the Petitioner suggested so soon after her delivery. According to her, when she went to her parents, the Petitioner was not calling her and when she called, the calls did not go through but she was not worried because she knew Petitioner was frustrated as a result of his job loss. It is difficult from the above considerations to see any behaviour of the Respondent which is unreasonable. At age 24, one wonders if any wife of her age will show the care and concern she showed when the Petitioner lost his job. In the opinion of this Court, the Respondent has not been proved to have exhibited any sort of unreasonable behaviour during their short marriage period as the Petitioner will want this Court to believe. The Respondent has cross-petitioned for divorce and also for custody of the child, arrears of maintenance from April, 2016, accommodation for the child and her, half of the matrimonial home, lump sum by way of financial provisions upon dissolution of the marriage and order to pay all expenses on the child of the marriage. Section 11 of Act 367 provides: “If in the proceedings for divorce the Respondent alleges against the Petitioner and proves the facts required by section 1(1) and 2(1), the Court may in those proceedings give the Respondent the relief to which the Respondent would have been entitled if the Respondent had presented a separate petition seeking that relief”. Section 1(2) of the Act provides: “The sole ground for granting a petition for divorce shall be that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation”. For the above, there Court is empowered to grant reliefs to Respondent when the facts before it shows that the Respondent is entitled to the reliefs even though the Respondent might not have asked for them by way of cross-petition. The above notwithstanding, the Court will consider the Respondent’s cross-petition and decide whether she is entitled to them. The Court will determine first whether the Respondent is entitled to maintenance since April, 2016. In her reply and cross-petition, the Respondent stated at paragraph 10 that the Petitioner has since February, 2016 failed to maintain her and the child of the marriage even though he has rented out all the rooms of the matrimonial home which is a storey building. She also stated at paragraph 13 that she now unilaterally caters for the health care, educational expenses, accommodation, clothing and other expenses relating to the child to the utmost neglect of the Petitioner. The Petitioner denied the above allegation of non-maintenance and neglect of the child and tendered exhibits ‘A series’, also ‘A-A10’ and also ‘B-B9’ evidencing various payments made to the Respondent and the child. In her evidence-in-chief the Respondent stated that “… I was to do National Service and I needed money for accommodation. I was given GH¢1,200.00 and that is the only money I was given for accommodation till now. Once a while, he sent me some money which was not regular”. This statement means that the Petitioner did not completely neglect the Respondent and the child as she wants the Court to believe. She continued in her evidence-in-chief that “… the child is now six (6) years. He is in school; Kushite International School and it is the Petitioner who pays for the fees…”. In cross-examination also, the Respondent answered like this; Q: A: Q: A: Your evidence that he was not taking care of you formally is also not true? It is true. You have an account with the Ghana Commercial Bank, Darkoman Branch? Yes. Q: Even though he was not working he was putting money in that account for you and the child? A: It was not for me but for the child. Q: A: Q: A: He was also sending you money onto your mobile money account? Yes. And the brothers have also been giving you cash personally? Yes. From the above, it cannot be true that the Petitioner did not take care of the child since the Respondent left to live with her parents. The Respondent’s claim for arrears of maintenance since April 2016 cannot be granted because evidence on record shows that she and the child were maintained. The next relief of the Respondent to be considered is whether she is entitled to half of the matrimonial home. In his evidence-in-chief, the Petitioner who testified per an attorney alleged that at the inception of the marriage, the Petitioner was working and the Respondent was a student. The Petitioner’s attorney stated further that “…since June, 2013, the Petitioner bought it as uncompleted and completed it and gave some out for rent. He finished before marrying the Respondent”. He also stated that the Petitioner made two instalments payment for the property and he tendered exhibits ‘C’ and ‘C1’ which are the receipts for the payments. The Respondent testified that when they married, they initially lived in a rented apartment at Adientem near Doctor Tawiah in Takoradi until 2015 when they moved into the house in dispute which was purchased by the Petitioner. She stated that the house was purchased in an uncompleted state at a time the Petitioner was working in a mining company. This evidence is the same as what was given by the Petitioner. The point of departure is that the Petitioner alleged that the house was completely acquired before the marriage. The Respondent however did not agree and testified that the house was bought uncompleted and even though the materials for the completion were bought by the Petitioner, she gave the materials out to the workers to complete the rest at the time she was pregnant and the Petitioner was at his work site at Dunkwa-On- Offin. She alleged that, she did all the ‘security work’ in the absence of the Petitioner. To confirm to the Court that the house in dispute was bought in an uncompleted state, the Respondent tendered exhibits ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘B1’. Exhibit ‘A’ is the house in its completed form and ‘B and ‘B1’ is when it was yet to be completed. Those exhibits were admitted without objections. If they were not objected, then ‘B’ and ‘B1’ show that the house was not completed when it was purchased as the Petitioner will want this Court to believe. In exhibits ‘B’ and ‘B1’, it is clear that at the time the pictures were taken, the top floor of the building was yet to be completed. Exhibit ‘A’ on the other hand shows a total completion of the building in dispute. The receipt, exhibit ‘C’ dated 18/03/13 indicating the first instalment of GH¢30,000.00 gave a narration as being part payment for an uncompleted building on Plot No. 6, situate at North Kwesimintsim-Assakae- Adientem-Mpatado Planning Scheme, Block ‘E’. Exhibit ‘C1’ which is dated 15/11/13 which was payment for the final instalment payment with sum of GH¢35,000.00 also has the same narration as payment for uncompleted building. In cross-examination, the PW1 answered thus: Q: A: You agree with me that currently the whole house has been rented out? Yes. If the whole house has been rented out now, then it means the house has now been completed. The Petitioner did not deny that the Respondent supplied the building materials to the workers and supervised them when the Petitioner was at his work place. If the Respondent did this work, then whether what was not completed was the garage or bathroom, nobody can say she did not contribute. It was held in the case of Mensah vrs. Mensah (1998-1999) SCGLR 350 that “The question of what is equitable, in essence, what is just, reasonable and accords with common sense and fair play, is a pure question of fact, dependent purely, on the particular circumstances of each case. The proportions are therefore fixed in accordance with the equities of any given case”. It was also held in the case of Gladys Mensah vrs. Stephen Mensah (2012) 1SCGLR 391 at 415 per Dotse B that “…The wife should be treated as an equal partner even after divorce in the devolution of the properties. The wife must not be bruised by the conduct of the husband and made to be in a worse situation than she could have been had the divorce not been granted. The tendency to consider woman (spouses) in particular as appendages to the marriage relationship, used and damaged, should not be considered as a stigma”. Even though it has no binding effect but only persuasive, the Court will want to refer to the case of Miller vrs. Miller (2006) AC 628 where it was held that “In the case of a short marriage, the Court may not give any weight to the duration of the marriage unless it would be inequitable to disregard it”. This Court has decided earlier on that even if the Respondent organised and or supervised the conclusion of the garage or one washroom, she contributed to the completion of the uncompleted house that the Petitioner purchased. Her contribution becomes relevant because she did it at the time she was heavily pregnant and the Petitioner was away from her trying to be able to provide for them. The Respondent did all she did believing that she was contributing towards the acquisition of the matrimonial home. The Court also takes notice of the fact that the Respondent is somebody who was lured into this marriage when she was at level 400 at the University and because the Petitioner thought he wanted her so much, married her immediately she left school even before she could do her National Service and got her pregnant. Months after her delivery, she willingly agreed to go and live with her parents at the instance of two of them as an obedient wife. Then from nowhere the Petitioner decided he was tired of the marriage; a marriage which was less than a year old. In cross-examination of the Respondent on 04/11/22, the Respondent answered this way: Q: Madam you told the Court that before your marriage in 2015, you and the Petitioner were in a relationship? A: Yes, please. Q: So you agree with me that there is a difference between a relationship and a marriage? A: Yes, please. The above clearly indicated that when the Respondent was in school and before they married, they were in a relationship. So it is surprising why the Petitioner decided that he was tired in a marriage he entered into in 2015. In cross-examination of the Petitioner’s attorney on 09/04/21, the Petitioner answered that before the parties parted or the Petitioner decided on the divorce, there had not been any allegation of adultery, denial of sex, no beating of the Respondent by the Petitioner as a result of any misconduct, no report from any of the parties to DOVVSU and no complaint had been made to the parents of the Respondent. So what was the grounds for the divorce? On the same day, in cross-examination, the Petitioner answered thus: Q: I am putting it to you that until date, there has been no bad issue in the marriage and so the divorce of the Petitioner has been brought in bad faith. A: Not true … the Petitioner has ground to ask for divorce. They did not stay for a longer period. If they had done so, there will have been issues. So it means there was no issues at the time the petition was brought to Court. It is therefore true that the petition was brought in bad faith. On 28/05/21, in cross-examination, the Petitioner answered this way also: Q: You also said at the time you testified that the Petitioner has no job to do to provide maintenance? A: Yes. Q: A: So that is the main grounds for divorce? It is part but not all. The above also shows that the Petitioner has no grounds for this application. The Court therefore agrees with the Respondent in her statements made at paragraph 4 and 11 of her answer that, she performed her duties to the Petitioner dutifully as a wife but the Petitioner treated her as chattel, used her and dumped her in pain and anguish. This sentiment, the Respondent repeated in her evidence-in-chief where she said; “I was traumatised when I heard that his family had gone to my family to have the marriage dissolved”. She will indeed be traumatised because she had done nothing and that was not what she was expecting at the time. Having said the above, the Court concludes that the Respondent contributed in the acquisition of the matrimonial home, and should be considered for a share. The parties have a child and this child will be a future beneficiary of the house in dispute whether the Respondent is given half share or not. It has been established that the property was bought uncompleted before the parties got married officially. Sight cannot be lost of the fact that the Respondent had supervised work on this house at a time she was heavily pregnant hoping that it was going to be her matrimonial home. Taking the above into consideration, the Court hereby orders that Petitioner pays an amount of Sixty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢60,000.00) in lieu of half of the property to the Respondent in accordance with the provision in section 20 of Act 367. This amount should be paid in three equal instalments effective the date of this judgement. This is towards her contribution. Respondent also claimed a lump sum by way of financial provision upon dissolution. No one can underestimate the trauma the Respondent went through in this marriage which did not last for a year due to no fault of hers. She alleged that she refused a lot of job opportunities as a result of this relationship and the birth of their child. The Respondent might have been gainfully employed if she had not gone through what the Petitioner had put her through. The Court therefore awards a lump sum of Fifty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢50,000.00). This should be paid within one month of this judgement. The Petitioner in his petition claimed custody of the child. However, in the evidence- in-chief of the attorney, he stated that the child is only five years so custody of him be given to the Respondent with reasonable access to the Petitioner. The Court agrees that the child is young and is in school at Kasoa with the Respondent. The Court therefore grants custody to the Respondent with reasonable access to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has stated that he provides for the child. The Respondent has confirmed that he pays school fees and the records also show that he pays some maintenance to the child. The Court hereby orders the Petitioner to continue to pay for the needs of the child such as school fees and other educational needs, health and other medical expenses when they are due and brought to the notice of the Petitioner. No order as to cost. The Respondent at the end agreed that the marriage be dissolved. The Court hereby dissolves the Ordinance Marriage which was celebrated between the parties on the 31st day of January, 2015 at the Pentecost International Worship Centre (PIWC) at Dansoman and orders a decree of divorce to that effect. (SGD) H/H MICHAEL K. AMPADU CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE 22