Pricilla Naa Dedei Komey Vrs Samuel Laryea [2022] GHACC 285 (2 December 2022)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GHANA HELD IN ACCRA ON THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HER HONOUR ROSEMARY BAAH TOSU (MRS) – CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SUIT NO C5/ 189/ 2020 PRISCILLA NAA DEDEI KOMEY PETITIONER VS SAMUEL LARYEA RESPONDENT ======================================================== ======================================================== JUDGMENT Petitioner prayed for a dissolution of her marriage to Respondent. Parties were married under the Marriage Ordinance on the 17th November, 2012 at ICGC, Nungua Cocoa Beach, Accra. There are two issues of the marriage aged 6 and 8 years. Petitioner complains that the marriage was fraught with many problems due to the unreasonable behaviour of Respondent. Respondent according to Petitioner was engaged in extra marital affairs with different women and she had no authority to question his behaviour. She says that Respondent also abandoned the matrimonial home for six years and she still does not know the whereabouts of Respondent. Petitioner pleads that their only form of communication is by telephone. Petitioner says that apart from paltry sums of between GHS500 and GHS600 which Respondent uses to maintain the children when school is in session, he makes no further contribution to them. Further, she has relocated both she and the children to her parents’ house, as it has become clear that Respondent has no intention to continue with the marriage. She prays for the following i. ii. The marriage should be validly dissolved. Any orders the Honourable court may deem fit. In his Answer, Respondent denies the allegations that their marriage was faced with difficulties and also the fact that he has been engaged in adulterous affairs. He also denies abandoning the matrimonial home. Respondent says that it is rather Petitioner who has refused to stay in the matrimonial home despite numerous attempts at settlement. Respondent accuses Petitioner of having acted unreasonably. Respondent says he is aggrieved by the conduct of Petitioner and prays as follows. a. The marriage between the parties be dissolved b. The Petitioner be granted custody of the children and the Respondent be given reasonable access as and when it demands c. The Respondent will support the Petitioner with monthly maintenance in the amount of GHS600 per month as monthly maintenance for the two children of the marriage, which amount could be reviewed as the need arises d. The respondent will support the Petitioner in meeting the educational and medical expenses of the children. The parties filed their witness statements as ordered by the Court and led evidence. Petitioner’s evidence in chief was a rehash mainly of her Petition. She concludes that due to the unreasonable behaviour of Respondent, she has suffered emotional trauma, distress and mental torture and cannot continue with the marriage to Respondent. Petitioner testified that she has endured living a single life for six years after Respondent left the matrimonial home and she is therefore unwilling to remain married to Respondent. Respondent gave evidence that since the birth of their second child, Petitioner has been nagging and threatening to leave the matrimonial home just because it was his family house. Respondent says he has been exasperated by this attitude of Petitioner. Respondent also says that he has also suffered emotional distress, anxiety and embarrassment as a result of Petitioner’s behaviour. Both parties agree that all efforts to resolve the matter by family and friends have been unsuccessful. Whilst trial was on going, the parties accepted to settle the suit amicably and filed Terms of Settlement. They pray the Court to enter these terms as consent judgment. The terms are reproduced below as follows. TERMS OF SETTLEMENT 1. Whereas the Petitioner on the 16th February, 2022 commenced the instant divorce petition against the Respondent for the dissolution of the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent. 2. Whereas the Respondent cross-petitioned as follows i. ii. iii. iv. That the marriage between the Petitioner and I be dissolved That custody of the children be granted to the petitioner while I am granted visitation and vacation visits to the children That respondent will pay to the petitioner monthly maintenance of GHS1200 for the upkeep of the two children of the marriage, which amount could be reviewed as the need arises That Respondent will bear the educational needs and medical expenses of the children 3. The parties have mutually agreed to settle the dispute amicably between them upon the terms contained below. NOW THEREFORE THE PARTIES HEREIN MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: a. That the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent be dissolved b. That custody of children be granted to the Petitioner while the Respondent is granted visitation and vacations visit to the children c. That the Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner monthly maintenance of GHS1,200 for the upkeep of the two children of the marriage, which amount could be reviewed as the need arises. 4. That the Respondent shall bear the educational needs and expenses of the children. 5. That these terms of settlement upon execution shall constitute the final settlement of this Petition and the parties shall not have any claim, lien or interest against each other except in the performance or otherwise of any obligations on then to perform under these Terms. 6. That there shall be no order as to costs in these proceedings in respect of the Petitioner and the Respondent 7. It is further agreed that the terms of settlement shall be filed and same entered by the Court as Consent Judgment in respect of this suit. ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION. The issue to be determined by the Court is whether or not the marriage celebrated on the 17th day of November, 2012 has broken down beyond reconciliation. The law governing the dissolution of marriages in Ghana is the Matrimonial Causes Act 1971(Act 367) and it provides that the sole ground for the dissolution of a marriage is that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. Section 2 of Act 367 provides the facts to be established by a party to show that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. (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 such adultery the Petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the Respondent or (b) That the Respondent has behaved in such a way that the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent or (c) That the Respondent has deserted the Petitioner for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, or (d) That the parties to the marriage have not lived as man and wife for continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and the Respondent consents to the grant of a decree; provided that such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and where, the Court is satisfied that it has so been withheld, the Court may grant a petition for divorce under this paragraph notwithstanding the refusal or (e) That the parties to the marriage have not lived as man 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. The parties to this petition have raised issues of unreasonable behaviour and adultery among others. However, per section 2(1) of the Act, a Petitioner is required to satisfy the Court of one or more of the facts listed above. The unchallenged evidence is that Respondent abandoned the matrimonial about six years ago and the only form of communication with Petitioner has been by telephone. Per section 2(1) (e) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1971(Act 367) one of the grounds upon which a Court can conclude that a marriage is broken down beyond reconciliation is when parties have not lived together as man and wife for continuous period of at least five years immediately before the presentation of the Petition. This fact testified to by Petitioner has not been denied by Respondent and neither did he challenge her under cross-examination. Respondent is therefore deemed to have admitted this fact. I find this ground proved sufficiently. I also find that all diligent efforts made by the parties to resolve differences have been unfruitful. DECISION Having heard the parties and considered the evidence, I find that the ordinance marriage celebrated by the parties on the 17th November, 2012 at ICGC Nungua Cocoa Beach, Accra is broken down beyond reconciliation and hereby dissolved. Let the Terms of Settlement voluntarily entered into by the parties and filed on the 2nd September, 2022 be entered as consent judgment of this Court. The parties will bear their own costs. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE (SGD) H/H ROSEMARY BAAH TOSU (MRS) 5