BOATENG VRS SRABIE (DM/0008/2023) [2023] GHAHC 455 (9 October 2023)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, ACCRA HELD ON 9TH OCTOBER 2023, BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ELFREDA AMY DANKYI (MRS), HIGH COURT JUDGE, SITTING IN DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES DIVISION THREE. __________________ SUIT NO: DM/0008/2023

KWASI MFUM BOATENG - PETITIONER VS.

VIDA SRABIE -

RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: This is a husband’s petition for dissolution of the marriage celebrated between the parties on 10th April, 2004 at the Accra Metropolitan Assembly, Accra under the Marriages Act, 1884–1985 (CAP 127). After the marriage, the Petitioner travelled to Canada where he currently resides and the Respondent lives in Accra. There is no issue of the marriage. The Petitioner states that, the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation and parties have lived apart over a long period. The Petitioner is praying for the dissolution of the marriage. The said petition was duly served on the Respondent. The Respondent entered appearance to the Petition on 10th October, 2022 and filed a Statement of Consent on the same day. The Respondent did not file an Answer and no Reply was filed by the Petitioner. Both parties were not legally represented. The pleadings in the suit having closed, the suit was set down for trial and trial was to have started on 23rd February, 2023. The evidence of the parties was heard on 2nd June, 2023. In view of the Terms of Settlement filed, the only issue for determination is whether or not, the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation. By Section 1 (2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1971 (Act 367), the sole ground upon which an order for dissolution of a marriage can be made is that the marriage has broken down beyond

reconciliation. Section 2 (1) of the said Act, however, requires that the Petitioner proves one or more of the facts set out in the said Section as follows: (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: (a) That the Respondent has committed adultery and that by reason of the adultery the Petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the Respondent; (b) That the Respondent has behaved in a way that the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent; (c) That the Respondent has deserted the Petitioner for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the Petition; (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 the Respondent consents to the grant of a decree of divorce, provided that the consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and where the Court is satisfied that it has been so withheld, the Court may grant a Petition for divorce under this paragraph despite the refusal; (e) That the parties to the marriage have not lived as husband and wife for a continuous period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the Petition; or (f) That the parties to the

marriage have, after diligent effort, been unable to reconcile their differences”. Being a Matrimonial Cause, the Court is duty bound, regardless of the Terms of Settlement filed and in accordance with Sections 2 (2) and 2 (3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), to inquire into the marriage of the parties, by hearing their testimony for a determination, as to whether or not, the marriage celebrated between the parties, has broken down beyond reconciliation. At the trial the Petitioner’s Lawful Attorney testified on Petitioner’s behalf. He said that after the marriage the parties never lived together as man and wife and Petitioner travelled to Canada where he currently resides. Respondent agrees to the dissolution of the marriage and parties have filed terms of settlement. Respondent testified that she agrees to the dissolution of the marriage and that the parties have not seen each other since 2007. Respondent further testified that anytime the Petitioner comes to Ghana he never bothers to look for her or call her. She testified that on one occasion the Petitioner called to tell her that they should dissolve the marriage. From the evidence adduced before the Court by the Petitioner, there is no dispute that the parties have not lived as man and wife for a period of about sixteen years preceding this petition and the Respondent gives her consent to the dissolution of

the marriage. Section 2 (1) (e) of Act, 367 stated supra is a ground for the dissolution of marriage. As the parties have lived apart for a period of sixteen years and also been unable to reconcile their differences, after diligent effort, I find that the marriage celebrated between them has broken down beyond reconciliation. Upon the evidence adduced before the Court therefore, I find that the marriage celebrated between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation. It is hereby decreed that, the marriage celebrated between the Petitioner and the Respondent on 10th April, 2004 in Accra, be and is hereby dissolved. The marriage certificate is cancelled forthwith. On 17th May, 2023, the parties filed Terms of Settlement praying that same be adopted by this Court. This Court hereby adopts the said Terms of Settlement and enters Consent Judgment between the parties as follows; 1. That on the 26th September, 2022 the Respondent received an amount of Twenty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢20,000.00) from Reverend Augustine Baidoo (a friend of the Petitioner) on behalf of the Petitioner in the presence of Moses Lorjesc (Petitioner’s Lawful Attorney).

2. That on the 17th day of April, 2023 the Respondent again received an amount of Fifteen Thousand Cedis. (GH¢15,000.00) from Moses Lorjesc (Petitioner’s Lawful Attorney) in the presence of Mr. Theophilius Teye.

3. That in total, the Respondent has received an amount of Thirty-Five Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHȼ35,000.00) as Terms of Settlement. (SGD.) ELFREDA AMY DANKYI (MRS) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT. COUNSEL: NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR BOTH PARTIES. 5