Forson v Forson (A4/05/2024) [2025] GHADC 65 (22 January 2025)

INTHE DISTRICTCOURTB, SITTINGATKOFORIDUAONWEDNESDAYTHE 22NDDAYOF JANUARY,2025,BEFOREHERWORSHIPYVONNE NELLYAMA ADJADI. SUITNO.A4/05/2024 TIME:8:50HRS CYNTHIAFORSON PETITIONER V. DOMINICFORSON RESPONDENT JUDGMENT The parties were joined in holy matrimony at Great Family Chapel, Ashaley Botwe on 9th January, 2010. They cohabited at Ogua, Koforidua and the union was blessed with two sons. 13 years later, the Petitioner filed the Form for Petitioner to have the marriage dissolved. The process, which was filed on 23rd November, 2023 gave the summary of reasons for divorce as lack of maintenance, desertion and threat to life. That same day she filed a Petition, and averred that the Respondent has not been gainfully employed from the onset of the marriage thus, putting a burden on her as thebreadwinner athome. The reliefs she sought fromthe Courtwere the following; 1. The dissolution ofordinance marriagecontracted betweenthe parties, 2. Custodyofthe twochildren, 3. Maintenance ofGH¢500.00per monthfor the children, 4. An order from the court compelling the Respondent to assume full responsibility for the children’s education, clothing, health and any other incidental expensesand 5. Anyotherorderdeemed fit by theCourt. 1 In answer, the Respondent denied the averments contained in the Petition. He alleged the Petitioner put up unreasonable behaviors. He further claimed he provided for her needs and those of the children without her support and alleged thatshe movedout ofthematrimonial home on20thDecember,2022. The only thing parties agreed on was that efforts to reconcile parties were not successful. The Petitioner filed her Witness Statement on 20th March, 2024, whiles the Respondent filed on 19th March, 2024. Parties did not attach any exhibits in support of their claims, save Petitioner’s Exhibit A which is the marriage certificate. On 28th May,2025,the partiesexecuted and filed termsofsettlement. It was agreed between them that the Respondent will pay GHS 400 a month for the two children, foot the school fees and share clothing, health and any other incidental expenseswith thePetitioner. On13th November,2024the parties appeared before the Court forhearing. They both elected nottocross-examine the other. Under the laws of Ghana, a marriage contracted under ordinance may only be dissolved by a court if it is established that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation according toSection 1(2) ofthe Matrimonial CausesAct, 1971 (Act 367). One of the facts which can establish that a marriage has broken down beyond reconciliationis unreasonable behaviour. The Petitioner claimed that every conversation regarding maintenance degenerated into fights where Respondent rained curses on her and once threatened her with a pair of scissors. The Respondent in answer stated that it was rather the Petitioner who attempted to stab him with a pair of scissors. He further stated that she tended to insult him in the presence of other tenants whenever they had a misunderstanding. 2 InKnudson v.Knudson [1976]1GLR 204,Amissah J.A stated that: “The question therefore, is whether the Petitioner behaved in such a way that he could not be reasonably expected to live with her. 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 cumulativeeffect ofallwould do so.” The parties have not put any evidence before the court regarding their opposing claims of insults and assault by way of a pair of scissors. The Respondent, who alleges that a mark was left on his hand after the attack did not even furnish the courtwith aphotographofthe scarred hand. All the court has to rely on aside the Petition and Answer to the Petition is their Witness Statements which were adopted as their evidence- in -chief in this matter on oath. Inthecase ofKoteiv.Kotei[1974]2GLR172,Sarkodee J. held asfollows; “The sole ground for granting a petition for divorce is that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. But the petitioner is also obliged to comply with section 2(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), which requires him to establish that at least one of the grounds set out in that section… proving one of the provisions without more is proof of the breakdown of the marriage beyond reconciliation… It is accepted that proof of one or more of the facts set out in section 2(1) is essential, and that proof of one of them shows that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. It is also conceded, that notwithstanding proof, the court can refuse to grantthe decree ofdissolution on the ground that the marriage has not brokendown beyond reconciliation. It will be noted that the discretion given to the court is not a discretion to grant but to refuse a decree of dissolution, this means that once facts are proved bringing the case within any of the facts set out in section 2(1) of Act 3 367, a decree of dissolution should be pronounced unless the court thinks otherwise. In other words, the burden is not on the petitioner to show that special groundsexist justifying the exercise ofthe court’spower.”(Emphasis mine), It is this court’s view that, refusal to maintain a spouse and issues of a marriage, and a marriage characterized by alleged insults and assault fit the bill of unreasonable behaviour. The fact of desertion was not proved by the Petitioner. Parties have been living separately since 2022. They have testified that attempts at settlement by both families havefailed, the last attemptbeing in 2023beforethe Petitionwasfiled. The court therefore finds and holds that the marriage celebrated between the parties herein onthe 9thday ofJanuary, 2010at NmaiDzorn,Accra has brokendown beyond reconciliation as claimed by parties. The court hereby decrees that the ordinance marriage celebrated between the parties is dissolved today the 22nd day of January, 2025forthwith. ANCILLARYRELIEFS As mentioned supra, the parties executed and filed terms of settlement on 28th May, 2024. The court accordingly adopts the said terms of settlement as consent judgment inrespect ofancillary reliefs ofbothparties andthey areasfollows: 1. Custody of Ednora Forson and Benedict Forson is hereby granted the Petitioner, withaccess totheRespondent onweekends and during vacations. 2. That the Respondent shall maintain the issues on a monthly stipend of GHS 400. This amount is tobe reviewedupwardsby 20% everyyear. 3. That theRespondent shall bear responsibility forschoolfees. 4. That the Petitioner and Respondent shall equally share responsibility with respect toclothing, healthneedsand otherincidentals related toraising the issues. (SGD) H/WYVONNE NELLYAMA ADJADI MAGISTRATE 4