Sumanu Vrs Rahman [2022] GHADC 58 (22 December 2022)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT “B”, SEKONDI, W/R, HELD ON THURSDAY 22ND DECEMBER, 2022, BEFORE H/W (MRS.) ROSEMARY EDITH HAYFORD, ESQ., SITTING AS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE __________________________________________________________________ SUIT NUMBER A4/63/2022 RABIATU SUMANU - PETITIONER V OSUMANU ABDUL RAHMAN - RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME: 10.28 AM PETITIONER RESPONDENT - - PRESENT PRESENT ___________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT The parties were married under Islamic law sometime in 2001. After the marriage, they co-habited at Bakado, Sekondi and they have four children. The instant petition was filed by the petitioner against the Respondent on the 27th of May, 2022, that the said marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation and prayed for the following reliefs: a) Dissolution of the marriage celebrated between the parties. b) An Order to compel the Respondent to pay alimony to the Petitioner The Petitioner grounds her prayer for the dissolution on unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Respondent. In an Answer filed on the 16th of June, 2022, the Respondent denies that he has behaved unreasonably and indicates that any action he has taken is as a result of the behaviour of the Petitioner. He cross-petitioned as follows: 1. That the marriage should be dissolved forthwith 2. That custody of the four (4) children of the marriage should be granted to the Respondent with reasonable access to the Petitioner. THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER The petitioner avers that the parties have had their differences as a result of which the Respondent has indicated that he was no longer interested in the marriage. As a result, the Respondent gave an amount of GH₵1,200.00 to Petitioner’s brother to look for alternative accommodation for the Petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner that her said brother informed the Respondent that the amount would not be sufficient to rent a place at Bakado and requested a top up which the Respondent has failed to provide. Petitioner says that the Respondent has ceased her from using anything in their matrimonial home that uses electricity. Respondent has further warned her from using the toilet facility in the household. Petitioner further avers that the Respondent has failed to maintain her and that there has not been any sexual intercourse between the parties for the past two (2) years. Again, there is no effective communication between the parties. Petitioner says she can no longer bear the humiliation, trauma and stress hence the petition filed. THE RESPONDENT’S CASE Respondent admits that the marriage between the parties has broken down but denies liability. He further admits that he has prevented the Petitioner from using any electrical appliances in the matrimonial home because the Petitioner has insulted him that she would defecate in his mouth and she has refused to apologise to him for which reason he was no longer interested in the marriage. It is the Respondent’s case that the uncle of the Petitioner found her a suitable accommodation however, the Petitioner refused to move out because she said she didn’t want to leave her children behind. The Respondent confirms that there is no effective communication between the parties and that they have not lived together as husband and wife for over two years. The sole ground for the grant of divorce in Ghana is that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. This is provided under section 1 (2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1971, Act 367. Section 2 of Act 367 (supra) also provides that to show that the marriage has indeed broken down the Petitioner would have to satisfy the court that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.” To be able to arrive at this conclusion, the petitioner is enjoined to establish that one or more of the facts stated in section 2(1) of the said Act have occurred. The issue for determination is whether or not the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation. The parties to this petition both made some admissions. For example, admission of verbal abuse, lack of effective communication between the parties and the fact that they have not lived together continuously as husband and wife for over two years. The Petitioner admits that she told the Respondent she would defecate into his mouth because the Respondent had referred to her as a prostitute. An averment the Respondent did not deny. For that reason, the Respondent ceased the Petitioner from using any electrical appliances in the matrimonial home. This situation heightened the tension between the parties to the extent that family members of the parties came in to settle the matter but they could not resolve the differences between the parties. To my mind the fact that there is a misunderstanding between the parties did not warrant the Respondent taking that step to stop the Petitioner from using any electrical appliance in the matrimonial home, oblivious to the fact that now every household gadget is hooked on electricity thereby bringing hardship on the Petitioner. The petitioner having been ceased from using the toilet in the home had to resort to the public one and when she does that too Respondent verbally abuses her. In open court the Respondent bragged and did not show any remorse for his actions. In my humble view, those acts were very callous and so unreasonable on the part of the Respondent. The issue escalated, which drew the parties farther apart so much so that for over 2 years, there has not been any sexual relationship between the parties. The Respondent is recalcitrant and indicated in open court that he was no longer interested in the marriage and consents to the dissolution of the marriage. Section 1(2)(c) of the Act provides “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 that the Respondent is not withholding consent.” Under the relevant provisions of Act 367, this court has no reason not to grant the petition, especially where the parties themselves informed the court that both families have met and could not resolve their differences. Further that it was agreed during one of the meetings that the Respondent should look for alternative accommodation for the Petitioner. When the parties were referred to the Court Connected ADR, the same arrangement was reached. The Respondent agreed and offered GH₵2,000.00 to the Petitioner to look for alternative accommodation. Out of this amount, an advance payment of GH₵400.00 has been made to the Petitioner which she acknowledged to the court. The remaining GH₵1,600 is yet to be paid to the Petitioner in respect of the accommodation. On the basis of the evidence adduced, it is my considered view that the marriage celebrated between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation as a result of the unreasonable behaviour of the Respondent. Both parties are seeking custody of the four children of the marriage. The first three boys are with the Respondent and the last girl is with the Petitioner. I shall not change the environment of the children, the status quo should remain. I shall proceed to adopt the terms filed by the parties dated the 16th of September 2022 and make the following orders: DECISION From the foregoing, I hereby grant the petition for divorce dated 16/06/2022 on the finding that the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation on the basis of Sections 2(1), (b) of Act 367. I hereby decree that the Islamic marriage celebrated between Osumanu Abdul Raman and Rabiatu Sumanu sometime in 2001 be and is hereby dissolved. The Registrar of this court shall issue a divorce certificate. Custody of the first three boys of the marriage is granted to the Respondent with reasonable access to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is hereby granted custody of the only daughter of the marriage with reasonable access to the Respondent The Respondent is ordered to pay an amount of GH₵3,000 as financial provision to the Petitioner. Same is to be paid by a monthly instalment of GH₵400.00 effective January 2023. The Respondent is further ordered to pay the remaining GH₵1,600.00 to cover the alternative accommodation of the Petitioner. There is no order as to cost. (SGD) H/W ROSEMARY EDITH HAYFORD (MRS) MAGISTRATE 6