Michaels v Jackis (GTNDC/A4/77/24) [2012] GHADC 1 (17 July 2012)

IN THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT “2” TESHIE, SITTING BEFORE HER WORSHIP GEORGETTE CARMEL LUTTERODT ON THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, SUIT NO:GTNDC/A4/77/24 SOLOMON OKRANG MICHAELS PETITIONER 36 CHESTER ROAD WD18 ORG WATFORD, UK SUING PER LAWFUL ATTORNEY ISAAC BONDIE ACQUAH V LAURENCIA KUKUA JACKIS RESPONDENT ATAA ODOI, TESHIE ACCRA Petitioner’s Lawful Attorney Respondent JUDGMENT Present Absent The petitioner filed a petition per his Lawful Attorney on the 26th day of August 2024, praying to the Court for the grant of the following reliefs: 1. A dissolution of the marriage celebrated under the Marriage Ordinance Cap 127, at the Ledzokuku Municipal Assembly, Teshie on the 14th day of January, 2021. 2. Custody of the issues to be granted to the Respondent with reasonable access to the Petitioner. 3. Each party to bear its own cost. The Respondent filed an answer and a cross-petition on the 17th day of October 2024, praying for the following: 1. A declaration that the marriage has not broken down beyond reconciliation and an order directing the Parties to attempt reconciliation through counselling, 2. Any other orders as this Honourable court deems fit. 3. OR in the alternative that the Court deems it fit to dissolve the marriage between the Parties, the Respondent prays as follows: i. An order directing the Petitioner to be responsible for the maintenance of the issues of the marriage, including the payment of their school fees and medical bills. ii. An order directed at the Petitioner to pay an amount of GH₵80,000.00 as compensation to the Respondent. iii. An order for custody of the issues to be granted to the Respondent with reasonable access to the Petitioner. iv. Any other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit. The Petitioner, on the 12th day of December, filed a reply to the Respondent’s answer and cross-petition. The brief facts are that the Parties married under the Ordinance at the Ledzokuku Municipal Assembly, Teshie in Accra on the 14th day of January, 2012 and have 3 issues aged 10, 8 and 3 respectively. The Petitioner asserts that after the marriage, the Parties cohabited at Teshie until he moved to the U. S to seek greener pastures. The Petitioner avers that the Respondent from the beginning of the marriage has been disrespectful to him to the hearing of the issue of the marriage and in the presence of family gatherings. That the Respondent extends her abuse to the siblings and relatives of the Petitioner without any provocations. The Petitioner further avers that the Respondent would not consult him on issues and would abandon her matrimonial home to her parent’s home without his knowledge despite constant pleases not to do same. It is the claim of the Petitioner that the Respondent denies him of sex and would deliberately not bathe in order to prevent the Petitioner from wanting to have sex with her. The Petitioner further claims the Respondent failed to cook, wash, or bathe the issues of the marriage and that he had to take on all those responsibilities. That he has been solely responsible for the maintenance, education, health and other necessities of life of the family. The Petitioner claims he enrolled the Respondent in fashion school to relieve the financial burden on his shoulders, but the Respondent was dismissed from the said school due to her quarrelsome and abusive behaviour. The Petitioner avers that the Respondent packed out of the matrimonial home in 2023 and has not been amenable to any form of settlement or reconciliation. APPLICATION OF THE LAW The issue for determination is whether or not the marriage celebrated between the Parties on the 14th day of January, 2012 at the Ledzokuku Municipal Assembly has broken down beyond reconciliation. By law, the sole ground a party who seeks for a dissolution of a marriage shall prove is that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. (see Section 1(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367) and in order for the Court to establish that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation, the Petitioner must satisfy the court of one or more of the facts provided for under Section 2(1) of Act 367. They are: 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 such 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 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, d. That the Parties to the marriage have not lived as a man 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 be 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 a man and wife for a continuous period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of this petition; or f. That the Parties to the marriage have, after diligent effort, been unable to reconcile their differences. At the hearing of the petition, the Petitioner relied on his Witness Statement as her Evidence-in-Chief. The Respondent failed to attend Court when trial began, even though she was personally served and later served via Substituted Service with all the processes, including several Hearing Notices. The rule is that when a party is given an opportunity to lead evidence in support of her stand or in defence of allegations against her but deliberately declines to avail herself of that opportunity, the court will be entitled to proceed with the trial to conclusion and make decisions, draw conclusions or make findings on the basis of the evidence adduced at trial. Thus the Petitioner cannot complain that she was not given a fair hearing or that there was a breach of natural justice. Case in point is JULIUS SYLVESTER BORTEY V PARESH & 2 ORS [2018] 120 G. M. J 1 PER DOTSE JSC. Therefore, the cross-petition of the Respondent is dismissed as she did not avail herself to adduce evidence to prove same. Upon careful examination of the evidence presented and after hearing the argument of the Petitioner, it is evident that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation due to the unreasonable behavior of the Respondent herein by failing to engage in sexual intimacy with the Petitioner, by failing to take on the responsibility as a mother and a wife and by leaving the matrimonial home in 2023. The Petitioner, as a result, finds it intolerable to continue to live with the Respondent as husband and wife. Furthermore, several attempts by both families and the church of the Parties to reconcile have proved futile. Hence, I am satisfied that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation and is hereby dissolved as prayed. Custody is granted to the Respondent herein with reasonable access to the Petitioner. Thus, the Petitioner is ordered to continue to maintain the issues of the marriage including school fees and medical bills. Each party is to bear their own cost. (SGD) H/W GEORGETTE CARMEL LUTTERODT MAGISTRATE 6