Amos Vrs Appiah [2022] GHADC 117 (3 November 2022)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT BEREKUM HELD ON THURSDAY THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIMON GAGA CIRCUIT JUDGE SITTING AS ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE SUIT NO. A4/10/2022 ANTHONY AMOS OF BEREKUM :::: PETITIONER VRS: VIVIAN APPIAH MENSAH OF BEREKUM ::: RESPONDENT J U D G E M E N T:- On 20th September, 2021 the petitioner filed this petition against the respondent for the follows relief:- An order for the dissolution of the Ordinance Marriage between him and the respondent. The respondent on 30th September 2021 cross petitioned the petitioner for the following:- 1. Order for alimony. 2. Push Off. 3. Respondent’s share of H/No. A. 36/1B, Berekum which they jointly acquired. PETITIONER’S CASE The petitioner per his evidence contends that he and the respondent got married customarily and later converted it into the Ordinance Marriage in June, 2003. They are blessed with four children namely. 1. Effah Boakye Isaac – 17 years 2. Amazing Adwoa Dadson – 13 years 3. Efua Fosuaa Divine – 12 years 4. Richard Mensah Amos – 7 years According to the petitioner, the respondent has been invoking curses on him at the least provocation. She is fond of insulting him and for over two years now, the respondent has denied him sex. According to the petitioner, he reported the conduct of the respondent to one Effah Boakye, who is a husband of the sister of the respondent but he could not settle their differences. The petitioner averred that he went to Japekrom and reported the conduct of the respondent to her parents but they could not resolve their differences. He further averred that their respective families met to reconcile them but to no avail. Without any provocation the respondent left the matrimonial home. The petitioner therefore prayed the court to dissolve the marriage. The petitioner called one witness to buttress his case. RESPONDENT CASE:- In her evidence in chief, the respondent contended that they married under the customary law which was later in 2003 converted into the marriage under the ordinance. They have four children. According to the respondent, it was the first day that they got married that the petitioner told her that he was not interested in the marriage. That he only wants someone to bear children for him. When she protested, the petitioner took offence and since then, they have not been in good terms. According to the respondent, for some time now, the petitioner has been behaving unreasonable towards her. The petitioner has stopped eating her food. For eight years, the petitioner has denied her sex. All attempts by their families to reconcile them have proved futile. During the subsistence of the marriage, she contracted a loan from the Agricultural Development Bank at Berekum and assisted the petitioner in putting up a house at Ahenbronoso with H/No. A. 36/1B. The house has a two chamber a hall and one single room self-contained. She prayed the court to give her share in the house and also a push off. She tendered in evidence the marriage certificate which was admitted in evidence as Exhibit ‘1’. The respondent called one witness to buttress her case. EVALUATION:- By the evidence of both petitioner and the respondent it is clear that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation and that their marriage should be dissolved. Section 2(2) and (3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 367 of 1971 states as follows:- “On a petition for divorce it shall be the duty of the court to inquire so far as is reasonable into the facts alleged by the petitioner and the respondent”. Section 2(3) states as follows:- “Notwithstanding that 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 had broken down beyond reconciliation”. This accounts for reason why though the parties have agreed to the dissolution, the court took evidence to that effect. To grant divorce, the court should be satisfied that one or more of the facts stated in Section 2(1) (a) to (f) exist. Under Section 1(2) of the Act, the sole ground for granting a divorce shall be that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. From the evidence of the parties which were corroborated by their respective witnesses, both parties have come to conclusion that they could not live together as husband and wife. With regard to the house at Ahenbronoso, with H/No. A. 36/1B, the respondent crossed petitioned by saying that it is a jointly acquired property. She said that she took a loan from the Agricultural Development Bank, Berekum and assisted in building the house. However, the respondent could not produce any shred of evidence that indeed she took a loan from the Bank. Notwithstanding this, the petitioner during cross examination has accepted that the respondent should take the 2 bed room self-contained in the house as her share. This the respondent agreed to it. It is therefore the considered opinion of this court that the marriage under the ordinance with certificate No. CAC/BAC/008/2003 dated 7th June, 2003 is hereby dissolved. The parties can go their separate ways as bachelor and spinster. Also, the two bed room self-contained in house No. A. 36/1B should be taken by the respondent as her share. The petitioner is also to pay GH₵5,000.00 as alimony to the respondent. SGD. H/H SIMON GAGA ESQ CIRCUIT JUDGE (SITTING AS ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE) PARTIES - PRESENT. 5