AKUAK VRS. ASANTE (AR/ES/DC/A2/13/2025) [2024] GHACC 345 (26 November 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT ASOKORE MAMPONG ON 26TH MARCH 2025 BEFORE H/W HILDA ESTHER WRYTER ESQ (MRS) DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUIT NO. ASH/ASKM/DC/A4/25 CYNTHIA MABEL GYAMFI } OF A7-17-84 OFFINSO } PETITIONER ABOFOUR } VRS FRANCIS OWUSU BANNOR } OF AS-018-4299 SEPE DOTE } RESPONDENT NSUTA } JUDGMENT PETITIONER’S CASE On the 7th of February 2025, this petition was filed by the Petitioner for the following reliefs; a. Dissolution of the marriage. b. Custody of the child who is Oswald Kwabena Sanwu Owusu be granted to the Petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner that she is a nurse. That she got married to the Respondent on the 6th of September 2020 under the ordinance. That there is one issue of the marriage who is 3 years. That somewhere in 2022, the Respondent relocated to Accra without the knowledge of the Petitioner. That steps were taken to inform the family of Respondent who took steps to locate him but to no avail. That she was however informed through the Cousin of the Respondent that he the Respondent is not returning to the matrimonial home and that she could move on with any man. That she had never been showed love or compassion ever since she got married to the Respondent. That the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. That the Respondent’s continuous absence from the matrimonial home is deemed unreasonable and the Petitioner cannot be expected to live with him as a husband thus this petition. RESPONDENT’S CASE The Respondent who describes himself as a businessman list his address as Sepe Doti, Asokore Mampong. He confirmed that he was married to the Petitioner 6th of September 2020. He also confirmed that there is one issue in the marriage. It is however the case of the Respondent that the petitioner works at Offinso and as a result of that she relocated there. That Petitioner at all material times refused to visit the matrimonial home which the Respondent deems to be his residence at Sepe Doti. That he visited the Petitioner one day and met her living with another man. This was reported to the family of the Petitioner. Nothing however came out of the report given to the Petitioner’s family. It is the assertion of the Respondent that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. That he cannot be expected to live with the Petitioner as a husband and also prays for the dissolution of the marriage. ISSUES 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE MARRIAGE HAS BROKEN DOWN BEYOND RECONCILIATION. 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD IN THE MARRIAGE IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE RESPONDENT WITH REASONABLE ACCESS TO THE PETITIONER WHETHER OR NOT THE MARRIAGE HAS BROKEN DOWN BEYOND RECONCILIATION. For a marriage to be deemed broken down beyond reconciliation, the elements in Section 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1971 (Act 367) must be proven in the evidence that is given. Section 2 is as follows; (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 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 (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. From the evidence on record, both parties stated that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation and that efforts to resolve the issues arising in the marriage were unsuccessful. It was, however, difficult for the court to decipher which home was considered the matrimonial home of the parties in the suit. Both failed to give any information as to where they were residing immediately after the celebration of the marriage. Whereas the Petitioner referred to Offinso as the matrimonial home because she is a nurse posted to the place, Respondent referred to Sepe Doti at Asokore Mampong as the matrimonial home because he is currently residing there. It is worthy to note that, Petitioner also alluded to the fact that Respondent relocated to Accra without her knowledge which same fact was not acknowledged by the Respondent. From the facts as narrated above, it could be argued that the marriage was defragmented from the beginning with no matrimonial home in sight as both were pulled in different directions. Respondent made mention of another man in the picture living with the Petitioner when he visited her at Offinso, but he did not specifically plead adultery. It could be seen that efforts were made to reconcile their differences but same were unsuccessful. It could therefore be deemed that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. WHETHER OR NOT THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD IN THE MARRIAGE IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE RESPONDENT WITH REASONABLE ACCESS TO THE PETITIONER The issue of custody of the child was not challenged in this petition. Petitioner stated as a relief that he should be granted custody of the child and Respondent made no mention of any other relief with exception of the dissolution of the marriage. The court will be guided by the provisions of Section 17 of Matrimonial Causes Act 1971 (Act 367) Section 17 of Act 367 states that “Either party to a marriage may petition the Court for a child custody order on the ground that the other party to the marriage has persistently behaved in an unreasonable manner towards either the Petitioner or a child of the household”. The issue of custody of the only child of the marriage in this instance is not an issue as the prayer of the Petitioner was not contested by the Respondent. CONCLUSION The marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation as attempts to resolve the issues in the marriage were not successful. The marriage celebrated on the 6th of September 2020 at the Apostles Continuation Church International, Asokore Mampong is hereby dissolved. The marriage certificate with license Number AMMA/14/9598214 and certificate number ACCI/KC/586/20 is hereby annulled. Custody of the only issue in the marriage is granted to the Petitioner with reasonable access to the Respondent on school vacations. Both parties are to be held equally responsible for the maintenance, health and educational needs of the child. There is no order as to cost. H/W HILDA ESTHER WRYTER (MRS) ESQ. MAGISTRATE, ASOKORE MAMPONG 26TH MARCH 2025