Tetteh Vrs Acquah [2022] GHADC 109 (24 November 2022)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT SOMANYA ON THURSDAY THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP MICHAEL DEREK OCLOO SUIT NO: A4/22/2021 COMFORT TETTEH } PETITIONER VRS SAMUEL AGYEI ACQUAH } RESPONDENT PARTIES: PRESENT J U D G M E N T The Petitioner commenced the instant action against the Respondent for the following reliefs: 1. An order for divorce and cancellation of Marriage Certificate NO. DC/AM/A4/452/18. 2. Recovery of possession of Two (2) Taxi cabs namely Kia Rio No. GR 5284-13 and Nissan No. GW 8604-16 On 4/11/2021 the Petitioner filed a letter to inform the Court that she was no longer interested in the recovery of the two (2) taxi cabs and the total amount of GH¢20,500.00 that she gave to the Respondent to purchase same. She further stated in the letter that she does not need any compensation or push off from the Respondent. The Petitioner confirmed this position by filling a notice of discontinuance of relief’s ‘b, c and d on 9/12/21. In her Evidence -in-Chief the Petitioner stated that she is a teacher and stays at Kpongunor- Odumase Krobo whiles the Respondent is a pastor and stays at Anyinam. She added that they got married on 13/9/2018 as per the tendered Certificate of Marriage. According to the Petitioner, there was no pregnancy 6 months into the marriage and the Respondent told her that she was barren as such he (Respondent) could not continue with the marriage. The Respondent brought a woman to the matrimonial home on 18/8/2020 at a time that he thought the Petitioner was at work not knowing that the Petitioner was relaxing in the room at that time. The meeting resulted in a fight between the Petitioner and the Respondent in which the Respondent physically assaulted the Petitioner. She concluded that there had been several misunderstanding and quarrels between her and the Respondent which both families and well-wishers had tried to resolve but to no avail. PW1, Moses Teye Amanor stated that the customary marriage rites were performed after which same was converted to ordinance marriage at The District Court, Amasaman. He added that there were series of quarrels between the Petitioner and the Respondent and both families attempted to resolve same but they were not successful. At one of the settlement meetings on 25/11/2020, the Respondent told the gathering that he had impregnated a certain woman as such the elders should advise the Petitioner not to quarrel or fight with the said pregnant Lady. He added that at another settlement meeting on 22/6/2021 the Petitioner gave the customary engagement ring and wedding ring to the Respondent who collected them and handed same over to his mother in the presence of members of both families. In the Evidence of the Respondent, he stated per his Witness Statement that the Petitioner did not get pregnant after the marriage and she (Petitioner) suggested to him (Respondent) that they should go and adopt a child. He added that he never told the Petitioner that she was barren and due to that he (Petitioner) would marry another woman. He added that, there were misunderstanding and quarrels in the home which the Petitioner reported to the Divisional Police Commander, Kibi who advised that they should settle the matter at home. The elders of both families held a settlement meeting at which the Respondent was ordered to pay a consideration to pacify the Petitioner which he did. The Petitioner then told the Respondent to take the lead to the matrimonial home at Anyinam and that she would follow later but she failed to do so. Later he was at work when a neighbor called and informed him on phone that the Petitioner had come to the house and packed her belongings into a vehicle and left. He called and enquired from the Petitioner who confirmed same and told the Respondent to rent another room before she would return which he did but the Petitioner did not come back. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner later brought him a bottle of schnapps to signify the dissolution of the customary marriage which he collected. Later at a family settlement meeting, the Petitioner stated that she was no longer interested in the marriage as such she threw the wedding ring to the Respondent who took same. Abusuapanyin Larbi Emmanuel (RW1.) per his Witness Statement confirmed the Evidence of the Respondent and added that the Respondent is his grandson. The Respondent thereafter closed his case. The legal issue for determination by the Court is whether or not the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. Section 2 of the matrimonial causes Act 1971 (Act 367) provides that for the purpose of showing that a marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation, the Petitioner shall satisfy the Court of one or more of the following facts: 2 (i) (a) That the Respondent has committed adultery and that by reason of such adultery the Petitioner finds it intolerant 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 parties to the marriage have not lived as man and wife for a continuous the Petition and period at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the Respondent consents to the grant of a decree of divorce (d) That the parties to the marriage have, after diligent effort, been unable to reconcile their differences. The Evidence adduced during hearing is indicative of the fact that the Respondent went in for another woman by name Grace and impregnated her and assaulted the Petitioner when she complained. This assertion is expressed in the Cross Examination of the Respondent by the Petitioner and also when the Petitioner Cross Examined the Respondent during cross examination of the Respondent by the Petitioner, the following ensued: Q. Do you remember that during an argument and quarrel between us you told me that I am barren as such you will marry another woman who can bear children for you? A. That is not true. Q. I am putting it to you that I was at the matrimonial home on a certain day when you brought a certain Lady by name Grace who was pregnant at that time? A. That is true I brought Grace home but she was not pregnant at that time. Q. Do you remember that you assaulted me on that day because of Grace? A. That is not true. Q. Do you remember that at a settlement meeting you said in the presence of the gathering comprising elders of both families that you have brought the pregnant woman by name Grace to the matrimonial home so I should not fight her? A. What I said was that, I have compensated you therefore when you see the pregnant Lady you should not fight her. Also when the Respondent Cross Examined the Petitioner the following transpired: Q. You stated in your Witness Statement that in December 2020 I brought a woman to the matrimonial home and the two of us beat you up. I am putting it to you that you were not staying in the matrimonial home at that time let alone the two of us beating you. A. What I stated was that I came to the matrimonial home after work without informing you and you came in with a woman and that generated a quarrel between you and I and you pushed me and I fell on the ground and got injured on and in my knees. Q. I am putting it to you that I brought the said Lady nearer the house and when we were about to enter same, you came out and attempted to attack the Lady and in my attempt to stop you, the two (2) of us fell down. A. That is not true. You brought the woman into the house and I did not attack her rather you told me that she was pregnant for you as such if I attack her and she suffered a miscarriage I would be held responsible. It is clear from the above that the Respondent committed adultery and assaulted the Petitioner when she complained of same. On page 195 of the 6th Edition of Bromley, Family Law adultery was defined as a sexual intercourse between two persons of whom one or both are married but who are not married to each other. In the instant case the Respondent was married and had sexual intercourse with the woman called Grace and this graduated into pregnancy. He even assaulted the Petitioner when she complained. With this conduct exhibited by the Respondent, the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to line with the Respondent. Furthermore, the Petitioner and the Respondent had not lived as man and wife for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the Petition. This is because the Petitioner did not deny the fact that she packed out of the matrimonial home either in her Witness Statement or by way of Cross Examination during the hearing. By extension it is appropriate to state that the situation constitutes desertion and the parties had not had sex for this period and the Petitioner has not cooked for and washed the clothes of the Respondent. It is also clear that both of the parties live apart or separately. The Petitioner and the Respondent have encountered misunderstanding and quarrels in the marriage and the elders of their families have made attempts to resolve some but have not been successful. During Cross Examination of the Petitioner by the Respondent the following transpired: Q. I am putting it to you that on 27/11/2020 you packed your belongings and vacated the matrimonial home before I returned from work. A. That is true to the extent that I informed you on phone so you were aware. Q. I am putting it to you that you gave the customary drink to me on 14/2/2021 to signify the dissolution of the customary marriage. A. That is true however it was in the presence of lady Grace your woman. Q. I am putting it to you that at one of the settlement meetings involving elders of our families you removed both the engagement and wedding rings and gave same to me and stated that you were no longer interested in the marriage. A. That is true. It is clear from the above that the Petitioner and the Respondent have been unable to reconcile their differences after diligent effort and as a consequence the Petitioner vacated the matrimonial home. It is my finding after considering all the evidence adduced that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. In the circumstance, I hereby declare the Ordinance Marriage with Certificate NO. DC/AM/A4/452/18 between Comfort Tetteh herein referred to as the Petitioner and Samuel Agyei Acquah herein referred to as the Respondent duly dissolved. There is no order as to compensation and distribution of property as the Petitioner per a notice filed on 9/12/2021 stated that she does not need any compensation from the Respondent and also does not need the two (2) taxi cabs and their total purchase price of GH¢20,500.00. Also there is no order as to custody and access as the marriage was not blessed with a child. (SGD) H/W MICHAEL DEREK OCLOO (MAGISTRATE) 24/11/2022 5