DWOMOH VRS OPOKU (A4/05/2024) [2024] GHADC 269 (23 July 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT HELD AT KUKUOM ON TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP JOSEPH HAMIDU

NASIGRE SUIT NO.A4/05/2024 DWOMOH RACHEAL ……… PETITIONER AND ERNEST YEBOAH OPOKU ………. RESPONDENT

IN THE MATTER OF THE DISSCLUTION OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN DWOMOH

RACHEAL AND ERNEST YEBOAH OPOKU

JUDGMENT The Petitioner brought the instant Petition before this Court praying for the following reliefs: (a) The dissolution of the marriage contracted between her and the Respondent under the Ordinance Cap 127 on 6/06/09 celebrated at the Seventh – Day Adventist Church, Maakro, Kumasi. (b) An order of the Court granting Custody of the parties three Children to the Petitioner or with adequate access granted to the Respondent. (c) The Respondent be ordered to pay maintenance of GH₵1,500.00 Monthly in respect of the parties three Children whiles the Petitioner adds her contribution for the Maintenance of the Children 1 (d) The Respondent be ordered to pay the school fees, rent, medical bills, renewal of the NHIS health Insurance Cards periodically and other necessaries of life for the three Children. The Respondent in his response to the Petitioner’s Petition cross Petitioned that the parties Marriage be dissolved. He prayed for access to their Children and also prayed to be allowed to pay GH₵1,000.00 as Maintenance Monthly for the Children. PETITIONER’S CASE The government of the Petitioner’s case is that the Respondent deserted their Matrimonial home for about three years now. The Respondent put up certain attitudes and behaviors which posed a continuous threat to the survival of their marriage for the last five years prior to his desertion of the matrimonial home. The

Respondent has been irresponsible towards the Petitioner all this while and their three Children. The Petitioner has been the sole parent who takes the financial burden for the upkeep of the three Children with no support from the Respondent. In furtherance of her evidence the Respondent has by his conduct denied the Petitioner sexual inerrancy for the past three years. He rather spends his time with other women other than the Petitioner. The conduct of the Respondent has caused the Petitioner so much stress and anxiety that she can no longer be reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent as a wife. Strenuous efforts made by the parties’ families and Church leadership to reconcile the parties proved futile. The Marriage has subsequently been customarily dissolved since August, 2021 by both families of the parties. 2 It is the contention of the Petitioner that the marriage is broken down beyond reconciliation and same should be dissolved. The Petitioner further prays the Court for the recovery of cash the sum of GH₵15, 814.16 being the outstanding balance of a loan taken for the Respondent by the Petitioner. An equal share of unnumbered plot of land situate at Bekwai which was jointly acquired by the parties. THE RESPONDENT’S CASE The Respondent stated that he left the Matrimonial home at the instance of the Petitioner. After the Petitioner returned the head drink on

30/08/2021 to Respondent’s Mother she refused to return to the Matrimonial home. The Petitioner subsequently lodged a complaint before the Domestic Violence and Victim Support Unit of the Ghana Police Service (DOVVSU) and they got him evicted from the Matrimonial home. He further stated that it has never been his intention to seek a dissolution of their marriage however, he agrees with the Petitioner for the dissolution of their marriage since they deem same as having broken down beyond reconciliation. The Respondent admitted having instructed the Petitioner to take a loan for the renting and furnishing of their matrimonial home but disputed the amount claimed against him as the outstanding balance of the loan refund. The amount claimed by the Petitioner is GH₵15, 814.16. But the Respondent disputed same as not reflecting the outstanding balance. 3

EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE The Petitioner’s assertion that the Respondent’s conduct of not showing care for the Petitioner and their Children especially in the area of living up to his financial responsibilities in the care of the parties Children and towards the Petitioner was not denied. Also, the Respondent did not deny the Petitioner’s assertion that he denied Petitioner sexual intimacy for about three years when he deserted the Matrimonial home for about three years. The Respondent ‘s attempt to explain his conduct towards the Petitioner and their children that he was forced out of the Matrimonial home, in my view is not tenable since his exit from the house was after the Customary head drink of the Petitioner had been returned signifying the dissolution of the Customary marriage. It is instructive to note that the Respondent cross-Petitioned and agreed with the Petitioner that the ordinance marriage should be dissolved since all efforts made by the parties families and the Church leadership to reconcile the parties proved futile. The parties are at id-idem in their evidence to the court that their marriage have broken down beyond reconciliation and should be formally dissolved by granting the Petition of the Petitioner. At the trial, the parties agreed on the refund of GH₵10,000.00 to the Petitioner by the Respondent being the outstanding balance of a loan refund to the

Petitioner. This amount was agreed by the parties instead of GH₵15, 814.16 being the Petitioner’s claim against the Respondent. The parties also agreed that custody of the parties three Children should be granted to the Petitioner with adequate access to be granted to the Respondent. An interim 4 monthly maintenance of GH₵1, 000.00 for the three Children was ordered for the maintenance of the Children as at March pending the final determination of the matter. The Petitioner also at the trial intimated to the court her intention to abandon her claim for the equal share of the parties jointly acquired plot of land situate at Bekwai. Same will therefore not form part of the Petitioner’s claim against the Respondent.

APPLICATION OF THE LAW Section 2 (1), (b), (c), (d) and (f) of the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1971, Act 367 provides for the proof of breakdown of Marriage beyond reconciliation. Section 2 (b) provides as follows; that a Marriage is broken down when the respondent has behaved in a way that the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent. Section 2 (c) states thus; that the Respondent has deserted the Petitioner for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the Petition and section 2 (d) that the parties to the marriage have not lived as husband and wife for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the Petition and Respondent consents to the grant of a decree of divorce…….. Section 2 (f) provides thus “that the parties to the marriage have, after diligent effort, been unable to reconcile their differences. When the Situations stated supra under the law arise in a marriage and after a diligent effort to reconcile the parties proved futile, then the marriage will be deemed to have broken down beyond reconciliation. 5

CONCLUSION Relating the law to the facts of the instant Petition before the court, the parties having diligently made an effort to settle their differences by themselves, family members and the leadership of their Church, and have failed I am of the considered view that, the parties marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. Consequently, I uphold the Petitioner’s Petition and prayer before this court that the parties’ marriage is broken down beyond reconciliation and same should be dissolved. I proceed to order that the parties’ marriage contracted on the 6/06/09 and celebrated at S.D.A Church at Maakro, Kumasi is hereby duly dissolved as having broken down beyond reconciliation. I proceed to make the following consequential orders; (a) The Custody of the parties three Children is hereby granted to the Petitioner with the Respondent granted adequate access to them. (b) The Respondent is hereby being ordered to pay GH₵1,500.00 as a monthly maintenance for the parties three Children. The payment of this amount is subject to review upon application when circumstances warrant so. (c) The Respondent is also being ordered to contribute significantly to the payment of the Children’s School fees, rent, medical bills, renewal of the Children Health Insurance and the provision of other necessaries of life to the Children. (d) The parties agreed at the trial for the Respondent to refund an amount of GH₵10,000.00 to the Petitioner being an outstanding loan refund to the Petitioner. I uphold same and order the Respondent to pay the said amount to the Petitioner forth with. Cost of GH₵5, 000.00 is awarded to the Petitioner. 6 SGD H/W JOSEPH HAMIDU NASIGRE (KUKUOM DISTRICT COURT) 7