Ferouza Vrs Yussif [2022] GHADC 246 (20 December 2022)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT 2, TAMALE HELD ON TUESDAY 20TH DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP D. ANNAN ESQ. BETWEEN SUIT NO. A4/02/23 KADIRI FEROUZA - PETITIONER AND MUSAH YUSSIF - RESPONDENT JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION 1. This judgment relates to dissolution of marriage. 2. The parties herein married under the Marriage Ordinance, 1951 Rev. (CAP 127) on 28th December, 2018 at the Accra Metropolitan Assembly, Accra in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana. The parties are Ghanaian citizens and currently resident in Tamale. The Petitioner is an immigration officer whiles the Respondent is an expatriate worker in Italy. There is no child of the marriage. There are also no listed properties acquired during the marriage. - 1 - 3. On 30th November, 2022 the Petitioner filed this petition for the following reliefs: a. That the said marriage celebrated be dissolved. b. That the Respondent be ordered to pay costs of and incidental to this suit. c. That the Respondent be ordered to pay such maintenance pending suit and thereafter such periodical payments as may be just. d. That the Respondent be ordered to pay in the alternative a lump sum of GHS10,000.00. 4. The Respondent filed an answer to the petition basically saying that he is not opposed to the dissolution of the marriage, however the Petitioner should not be granted the other reliefs. 5. Counsel for both parties informed the court that the parties would not contest reliefs b, c and d. Hence, the court set down the case for trial and heard parties viva-voce on relief a, i.e. the dissolution of the marriage. PETITIONER’S CASE 6. The Petitioner in her petition says that the Respondent has behaved in such a manner that she cannot reasonably be expected to live with him as a wife. She stated desertion as the ground for divorce. According to her, immediately after the marriage was celebrated, the Respondent moved to Italy and never returned to Ghana until recently. She contends that the Respondent has deserted the marriage for a continuous period of at least four years. She alleged also that the Respondent is living with another woman. She tendered in evidence, Exhibit A, being a copy of the marriage certificate. - 2 - RESPONDENT’S CASE 7. The Respondent in his answer admitted to deserting the marriage, stating that when he left for Italy he faced a lot of difficulties therefore could not communicate with Petitioner. Respondent added that Petitioner admitted to committing adultery and as a result given birth. This child, he is not the father. THE EVIDENCE AND THE LAW 8. Section 1(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367) provides that a decree for divorce shall be granted only on the ground that the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation. Section 2(1) of the Act specifies the conditions to be proved that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation to include: “(a) that the Respondent has committed adultery and that by reason of such adultery the Petitioner finds it intolerable 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 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 such 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 notwithstanding the refusal; …or (f) that the parties to the marriage have, after diligent effort, been unable to reconcile their differences.” 9. The law, therefore, requires the parties to satisfy the court on one or more of the grounds stated under s. 2(1) of the Act, see also the cases of Ansah v. Ansah [1982- - 3 - 83] 2 GLR 1127 and Akoto v. Akoto [2011] 1 SCGLR 533. Section 2(3) of Act 367 further provides that: “Although the Court finds the existence of one or more of the facts specified in subsection 1, the Court shall not grant a petition for divorce unless it is satisfied, on all the evidence, that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation.” 10. From the evidence, Petitioner contended that Respondent had abandoned the marriage over the past 4years without any communication. Due to this, she cannot reasonably be expected to live with Respondent as a wife. The Respondent, despite admitting to deserting the marriage, argued that the Petitioner had also committed adultery. The Petitioner did not deny this. During cross-examination, this is what ensued: “Q: You agree with me that you are currently a nursing mother? A: Yes. Q: You agree with me that the Respondent is not the father of the child? A: Yes.” 11. On the totality of the evidence, I find that Respondent has deserted the marriage. I also find that Petitioner has committed adultery. I wonder how this marriage could subsist. In fact, both parties indicated that they find it intolerable to live with each other as husband and wife. In effect, I have no hesitation in concluding that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation and it is for this reason that the petition shall be granted. I, therefore, decree that the marriage between the Petitioner - 4 - and the Respondent herein, celebrated on 28th December, 2018 at the Accra Metropolitan Assembly, Accra in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana with certificate number AMA/101808508/2018 and licence number 2698/MC/2018 be and is hereby dissolved. 12. As mentioned earlier, the Petitioner abandoned her reliefs b, c and d. Hence, I shall not make any determination to that effect. CONCLUSION 13. In effect, the marriage between the parties herein celebrated on 28th December, 2018 at the Accra Metropolitan Assembly, Accra in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana with certificate number AMA/101808508/2018 and licence number 2698/MC/2018 is hereby dissolved. Divorce certificate to issue. 14. No order as to costs. H/W D. ANNAN ESQ. [MAGISTRATE] ASURO NAPARI HOLDING THE BRIEF OF SHEIKH-ARIF ABDULLAH ESQ. FOR THE PETITIONER ALHAJI MOHAMMED SHAIBU ABDULAI FOR THE RESPONDENT References: 1. ss. 1(2), 2(1) and 2(3) of Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367) - 5 - 2. Ansah v Ansah [1982-83] 2 GLR 1127 3. Akoto v. Akoto [2011] 1 SCGLR 533 - 6 -