Lamptey v Darkwah (GTNDC/A4/32/24) [2025] GHADC 69 (30 January 2025)

IN THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT “2” TESHIE, SITTING BEFORE HER WORSHIP GEORGETTE CARMEL LUTTERODT ON THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY,2025 SUITNO: GTNDC/A4/32/24 AARONLAMPTEY PETITIONER 6805MAYFIELDROAD MAYFIELDHTS, OH44124 CLEAVELANDOHIO V RUTHDARKWAH RESPONDENT J3/4 NTHC ESTATE COMPLEX LASHIBI Petitioner Present Respondent Absent Harriet Akyiaah-Owusu for thePetitioner Present JUDGMENT On the 26th day of January, 2024, the Petitioner filed a petition for an order for the following: a) That the ordinance marriage celebrated between the Petitioner and Respondent onthe 27thday ofMarch, 2021be dissolved. b) The Respondent be granted custody of the only child of the marriage with reasonable access tothe Petitioner c) Anyotherrelief(s) asthis Honourable Courtmay deemfit. 1 The Respondent filed an answer on the 5th day of February, 2024 admitting that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation and cross-petitioned for the following: 1) Adissolution ofthemarriage celebrated between theParties. 2) Anorder forthe custody oftheissue ofthe marriage with reasonable access to thePetitioner. 3) An order that the Petitioner pays the sum of Three Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC3000) asmaintenance andupkeepofthe issue ofthemarriage. 4) An order that the Petitioner caters for the educational and medical expenses ofthe issue ofthe marriage. 5) An order that the Petitioner pays the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC200,000.00) asalimony tothe Respondent. The brief facts of the case are that the Parties married under the ordinance on the 27th day of March, 2021 at the International Central Gospel Church, Dansoman Accra. The Petitioner is ordinarily resident in the United States of America while the Respondent is ordinarily resident in Ghana. The Petitioner asserts that the Respondent's actions were unreasonable. After the marriage was celebrated, both Parties experienced communication and incompatibility issues. The Respondent repeatedly made unsubstantiated allegations against the Petitioner and expressed discontent with the lack of consistent communication, citing the Petitioner's demanding profession as an electrical engineeras acontributing factor. The Petitioner claims that the ongoing disagreements and miscommunications initiated by the Respondent have consistently led to new instances of verbal conflict, which have ultimately contributed to the deterioration of the relationship and the inability of the Parties to coexist as husband and wife. That the inability to settle 2 marital issues caused the Petitioner to withdraw from conversing with the Respondent toavoid further quarrelsandonly spoke whennecessary. It is further claimed by the Petitioner that several meetings have been convened to settlethe marital issues by family, friends and well-wishers but haveproved futile. On the other side, the Respondent claims the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation due to the unreasonable conduct of the Petitioner. That the Petitioner was aware that travelling to the United States within a short period after the marriage was unreasonable and would have a negative impact on the marriage as the Respondent was left to solely cater for the upkeep of the Parties’ newly born baby. The Respondent avers that the Petitioner does not have time for regular communicationwhich placed further strain on the marriage. The Respondent further says that the Petitioner has not shown any interest and commitment for the marriage betweenthe Parties. The Parties filed Terms of Settlement on the 18th day of April, 2024 to amicably settle allissuesrelating totheancillary reliefs. The Parties agreed asfollows: 1. That the terms of settlement be adopted as a consent judgement in relation to thesettlement ofthe ancillary reliefs betweenthe Parties. 2. That themarriage celebrated between theParties be dissolved. 3. That the Respondent be granted custody of the only child of the marriage withreasonable access tothePetitioner. 4. That the Petitioner caters for the educational and medical expenses of the issue ofthemarriage. 5. That the Petitioner pays to the Respondent monthly maintenance of Three Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC3000) subjecttoannual review. 3 6. That the Petitioner shall pay an alimony of Two Hundred Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC200,000.00). 7. BothParties areto beartheir respective legalcosts. Parties to divorce proceedings cannot file terms of settlement agreeing that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation thus should be dissolved. The court must always be satisfied that indeed the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation by at least studying the witness statements and listening to the evidence ofthePetitioner and Respondent through cross-examination. In light of this, the following terms are hereby adopted as consent judgement on the ancillary reliefs betweenthe Parties: i. That the Respondent be granted custody of the only child of the marriage withreasonable access tothePetitioner. ii. That the Petitioner caters for the educational and medical expenses of the issue ofthemarriage. iii. That the Petitioner pays to the Respondent monthly maintenance of Three Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC3000) subjecttoannual review. iv. That the Petitioner shall pay an alimony of Two Hundred Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC200,000.00). v. BothParties areto beartheir respective legalcosts. The issue for determination by this Honourable Court is whether or not the marriage celebrated between the Parties on 27th day of March, 2021 at the International Central Gospel Church Dansoman in Accra has broken down beyondreconciliation. Both the petition and the cross-petition were presented to the court under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367). Under section 1 (2) of Act 367, “The sole 4 ground for granting a petition for divorce in a marriage contracted under the Marriage Ordinance, Cap. 127 (1951 Rev.) shall be that the marriage has broken downbeyond reconciliation.” The Act requires that for the purpose of showing that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation the Petitioner must satisfy the court of one or more of certain givenfacts. They were statedinsection 2(1) as: “(a) that the respondent has committed adultery and that by reason of such adultery thepetitioner finds it intolerable to live withthe respondent; or (b) that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonablybe expectedtolive withthe respondent; or (c) that the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of at least twoyearsimmediately preceding thepresentationofthe 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 paragraphnotwithstanding therefusal; or (e) that the parties to the marriage have not lived as man and wife for a continuous period ofatleast five yearsimmediately preceding thepresentationofthe petition; or (f) that the parties to the marriage have, after diligent effort, been unable to reconcile their differences.” 5 The Petitioner appointed a lawful attorney to testify on his behalf and to execute the witness statement of the Petitioner. At the hearing, both Parties relied on their own witness statementsastheir Evidence in Chief, but therewas no Cross-Examination. Upon careful examination of the evidence presented and after hearing the arguments of both Parties, it is evident that both Parties have demonstrated that the marriage hasbrokendown beyondreconciliation. This is evidenced by the inability of the Parties to reconcile their differences. Communication issues have existed since the inception of the marriage due to the Petitioner's decision to relocate to the United States and the nature of his job, which requires long hours and constant on-site attendance to meet the demands of his work. These communication issues led to disagreements and eventually little or no communication which made it impossible for the Parties to settle their marital issues and reconcile their differences. There is evidence that the Parties tried to settle their differences through several attempts by family, friends and well-wishers. These attempts rather caused the Parties to grow distant as both Parties cannot sustain a conversation without it erupting intoaquarrelordisagreement. Hence, I amsatisfied that the marriage celebrated between the Parties onthe 27th day ofMarch, 2021at the International CentralGospel Church in Accra has brokendown beyond reconciliation and is hereby dissolved. The marriage certificate ICGC.KWASH.03/21 is duly cancelled. (SGD) H/WGEORGETTE CARMEL LUTTERODT MAGISTRATE 6 7