TETTEH VRS. BOATENG (AR/AO/DC2/C5/23/22) [2025] GHADC 17 (31 January 2025)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD ASOKWA-KUMASI ON 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025, BEFORE HER WORSHIP AMY BONDZIE-HANSON ESQ, MAGISTRATE. SUIT NO: AR/AO/DC2/C5/23/22 IN THE MATTER OF: RICHMOND TETTEH OF SOKOBAN-AMPABAME VRS FELICITY AGYENIM BOATENG OF AFARI NEAR NKAWIE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT The petitioner in this petition filed on 30/08/2021 seeks the dissolution of the ordinance marriage between him and the respondent which was celebrated on 28th November, 2015. He also prays for custody of the children of the marriage. The undisputed facts of the case are that the parties married under the ordinance on 28th November, 2015 at the St. Joseph Catholic Church, Tanoso, Kumasi. The parties after the marriage cohabited at Ampabame, Kumasi before the petitioner was transferred to Tamale in the Northern Region where he has been staying and working till date. There are three issues out of the marriage. 1 The petitioner testified that the respondent started exhibiting her true character/attitude of rudeness and disrespect for adults to him not soon after they got married and all attempts to get the respondent to change had been unsuccessful. Petitioner stated that the respondent has been very aggressive and reacts violently to the least of provocations and anytime she is violent she destroys items belonging to the petitioner. Due to the persistent quarrels and insults the Respondent hurled on the Petitioner’s mother the respondent moved out of the matrimonial home which was the petitioner’s mother’s house. That the respondent insults his parents at any opportunity sometimes in the face of the mother. According to the petitioner, the respondent once visited him in Tamale and requested to have a talk with him outside. This was around 11:30 pm and so he told the respondent that he was tired that evening. That did not go down well with the respondent. She picked a quarrel with him and gave him some slaps and used an electric iron to hit him on the chest. Out of anger the respondent picked a knife and attempted stabbing him. The respondent destroyed the television set in his room and used the iron to hit him leaving a mark on my chest. The respondent also bit him on his hands and inflicted several physical marks on his body. Petitioner added that the respondent packed out of the matrimonial home and has been staying with her mother since then and all attempts to talk the respondent into coming back has failed. The petitioner further testified that the parties have not had any conjugal relationship or sex since 2020 and that the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation and so urged the court to dissolve same. The Respondent filed an answer to the petition on 8/09/2021. In her response, she cross-petitioned for custody of the children with limited access to the petitioner, maintenance and accommodation for the issues of the marriage and alimony. The respondent testified that the parties have never lived together as man and wife for one whole year at the same place. Immediately after the marriage, the petitioner has never 2 rented a room for the respondent and the children to live in with at the same place. The respondent at the moment is living with the children in her parents’ house. The respondent denies disrespecting or showing rudeness to the petitioner or his mother. She says she is neither aggressive nor easily provoked but it is the petitioner painting her black for the purpose of getting out of the marriage. The respondent has stated that she does not take unilateral decisions. That it is the petitioner’s insistence on them living with his family in their house which has resulted in the indifference currently existing between them. In explaining the fight in Tamale, the respondent stated that the petitioner once went out whilst she was with him in Tamale and came home very late after 11pm. She demanded that they have a talk which resulted in a scuffle. In the scuffle, the petitioner severely assaulted her and in her bid to free herself from him she slapped him and threw an object to hit the television set to get his attention from her to give her some freedom. Respondent admitted bringing a knife with the intention to give it to the petitioner for him to kill her as what he was doing to her suggested that he intended to kill her and right after the fight she started receiving insulting and threatening messages on her phone which was quite surprising as no one knew of the quarrel except the petitioner. She added that she has never packed bag and baggage out of the house of the petitioner and that she still has her personal belongings in the house of the petitioner’s parents. The Respondent further stated that their respective families sat and resolved that after delivering the third child she would return to the petitioner’s mother house which she agreed to and went to clean the house a few days before Christmas in 2020. Thereafter, when she went to the house to live with the petitioner, his mother told her that the petitioner has told her to tell respondent that he does not need her in the house again for which Respondent told her mother-in-law that she would rather prefer the petitioner to come and sack her from the house. The respondent ended her evidence 3 that it has always been the petitioner who does not want the parties to reconcile their differences but simply wants to opt out of the marriage. When the action was set down for trial, this court differently constituted referred the parties to explore the court connected alternative dispute resolution (CCADR) mechanism to attempt settlement of the dispute between them. They could not settle their differences however; they were able to settle the ancillary reliefs. The parties have filed the terms of settlement in that regard. The issue that is outstanding for determination is the dissolution of the marriage for which the court had to take evidence. This is a matter of evidence and not necessarily the fact that the parties mutually consent to the dissolution. The law requires that evidence be led to satisfy the court that the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation in order for the petitioner to succeed in his prayer for dissolution of the marriage. The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367) provides under Section 1(2) that the one ground based on which a court shall grant a petition for divorce is that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. A petitioner seeking an order for dissolution of marriage is therefore required to produce evidence to the satisfaction of the court that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation and cannot be saved. This can be done by proving any of the grounds stipulated in section 2(1) (a)-(f) of Act 367. It is not enough for the parties to agree that the marriage be dissolved but there has to be evidence to the satisfaction of the court in support of the fact that the marriage has indeed broken down beyond reconciliation. I have considered the unchallenged evidence adduced. There have been accusations and counter accusations by both parties regarding the physical abuse that the parties have inflicted on each other. Both parties tendered pictures showing bruises they both sustained on their bodies as a result of the physical abuse they meted out on each 4 other. The petitioner has stated that the respondent during a quarrel gave him some slaps and used an electric iron to hit him on his chest leaving a mark on his chest. She also bit him on his hands and inflicted several physical marks on his body. Respondent out of anger picked a knife and attempted stabbing him. The respondent admits pulling a knife on the petitioner but she says her intention was to give it to the petitioner for him to kill her during a fight in which the petitioner severely assaulted her. I do not doubt the parties' testimonies that they have both been victims of physical abuse from each other. The pictures tendered in evidence by both parties speak for themselves. Under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1971 (Act 367) for the purpose of showing that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation the petitioner shall satisfy the court that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot be reasonably expected to live with the respondent. The behaviour of a party which would lead to this conclusion would range over a wide variety of acts. It may consist of one act if of sufficient gravity or of a persistent course of conduct or of a series of acts of differing kinds none of which by itself may justify a conclusion that the person seeking the divorce cannot reasonably be expected to live with the spouse, but the cumulative effect of all taken together would do so. In the case of Knudson v Knudson [1976] 1 GLR 204-216 the Court held Holding (2) The cross-petition was based on Act 367, s. 2 (1) (b) under which the test to be applied in determining whether a particular petitioner could or could not reasonably be expected to live with the particular respondent was an objective one and not a subjective assessment of conduct and the reaction of the petitioner. In assessing such conduct, the court had to take into account the character, personality, disposition and behaviour of the petitioner as well as the behaviour of the respondent as alleged and established in 5 the evidence. The conduct might consist of one act if of sufficient gravity or of a persistent course of conduct or series of acts of different kinds, none of which by itself might be sufficient but the cumulative effect of all taken together would be so. In the present case the conduct complained of spanned a number of years; some of the incidents if they stood alone might be dismissed as annoying incidents of marriage; others consisting of violence and hounding, culminating in the loss of the husband’s job in Kenya were more than could be tolerated. The husband could not reasonably be expected to live with this wife having regard to her conduct. In the instant case, the parties have shown evidence of physical abuse on each other. This particular incident arose out of the fight between the parties in Tamale. The violence complained of by the petitioner from the evidence may consist of one act. However, I am of the opinion that this one act is of sufficient gravity which coupled with all the other conducts complained of by the Petitioner against the Respondent amount to unreasonable behaviour on the part of the respondent No individual should be subjected to physical abuse of whatever form let alone from one’s spouse. There have been cases where such physical abuse in marriages has led to loss of lives in the long run. Under the circumstances, the parties cannot reasonably be expected to put up with such behaviour from each other. It would be best for them and the children to live apart. Quite apart from the unreasonable behaviour, both parties testified that all attempts at reconciling the parties did not yield any results. According to the petitioner he has not had sex with the respondent since 2020. The parties are living separate lives and it is clear that they do not have any intentions of getting back together as husband and wife. From the evidence there is not much to salvage in the marriage having regards to the stance taken by both parties. 6 It is clear from the evidence before the court that the marriage between the parties has broken down reconciliation and that dissolving same will be in the interest of both sides. For these reasons, the petition for dissolution is granted. The ordinance marriage contracted between the parties on 28th November, 2015 is hereby dissolved on grounds of unreasonable behaviour on the part of both parties. The respondent as part of her cross-petition prayed for an order for the petitioner to provide maintenance and accommodation for her and the three issues. The parties filed terms of settlement on the ancillary reliefs however, the issue of provision of accommodation for the issues of the marriage and the respondent was not settled on by the parties. I will therefore make a determination on same in making my final orders having considered the totality of the evidence before me. The evidence before the court is that the parties have lived in the petitioner’s mother’s house since they got married in 2015 until the cracks in the marriage started to develop and the Respondent moved out with the three children to live with her parents. I enter consent judgment on the ancillary reliefs on the basis of the terms of settlement filed by the parties on 14/03/2024 as follows: 1. The petitioner shall maintain the children of the marriage with a monthly sum of one thousand five hundred Ghana Cedis (Ghs 1500.00). 2. Custody of the children of the marriage is granted to the respondent with reasonable access to the petitioner. 3. The respondent foregoes the alimony as prayed in her cross-petition. It is further ordered for the avoidance of doubt that: 7 4. The petitioner shall have reasonable access to the children for a mutually agreed weekend (Saturday and Sunday) of every month during school term and every other weekend during vacations. The children are at liberty to spend their vacations with the petitioner. 5. The payment of the maintenance shall be made to the respondent on or before the 30th day of every month commencing February, 2025. 6. The petitioner shall be responsible for the educational and medical needs of the children. 7. The respondent shall be responsible for the provision of clothing for the children. 8. The parties shall equally share the rent for accommodation for the petitioner and the children. There shall be no order as to cost. (SGD) H/W. AMY BONDZIE-HANSON ESQ., DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 31/01/2025 8