HIGH COURT, ACCRA
Date: 4 DECEMBER 1973
ABOAGYE J
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
CROSS-PETITION for divorce on the ground that the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation. The facts are sufficiently stated in the judgment.
COUNSEL
R. K Tay for Amoo-Lamptey for the petitioner.
R. K Korsah (Agbesi with him) for the respondent cross-petitioner.
[p.134] of [1974] 1 GLR 133
JUDGMENT OF ABOAGYE J
The petitioner and the respondent were married at the office of the Registrar of Marriages, Accra, on 31 August 1957. They then lived in Tafo in the Eastern Region where the respondent practised medicine at the local hospital. In 1962, the parties moved from Ghana and lived in Denmark up to 1970 when they moved to live in England. From 1972 to March 1973, the respondent was in Nairobi, Kenya, working for the flying doctor services. The petitioner was resident in Ghana during the period that the respondent was in Kenya. In March, this year, the respondent was asked by his employers to resign his post and he flew back to his country, Denmark. It had been arranged that the petitioner who was then with him in Kenya was to fly back to Ghana. Instead of the petitioner coming back to Ghana, she borrowed money from the Ghana High Commission in Nairobi and flew to Denmark to join the respondent. The parties spent last Easter together with their three children in Denmark. On 13 May 1973, they all flew to Ghana and lived together in Accra. They continued to live together up to about 12 October this year, when the respondent was arrested on an absconding warrant issued at the instance of the petitioner or her solicitor. The respondent was at the same time served with a copy of the petitioner’s petition for divorce. On 19 November 1973, the petitioner’s petition was withdrawn and struck out. Mr. Korsah for the respondent then indicated that his client would pursue the prayers set out in his answer filed on 18 October 1973. The first prayer is that the marriage between him and the petitioner be dissolved.
The respondent gave evidence of his married life with the petitioner up to the time he was served with the petition.
He narrated various acts of nagging, teasing, assaults and extravagance committed by the petitioner since they got married. According to the respondent the marriage broke down from its very inception when they were at Tafo. The petitioner made his life at Tafo most unhappy, falsely accusing him that he was flirting with some of his nurses. The petitioner sometimes went to the extent of assaulting some of the nurses. In Denmark too the petitioner became jealous of the relationship between the respondent and his relatives with whom she would not co-operate. There is evidence from the respondent that throughout their stay in England the petitioner was violent and extremely extravagant. She destroyed most of the respondent’s property including furniture, a slide-projector, hunting trophies and some medical books. The petitioner used to fly from London to Ghana and back at will, all at the expense of the respondent. When the respondent was in employment in Kenya the petitioner visited him against the advice of the respondent and then wrote to the respondent’s employers that he was not interested in his work. This caused the employers to demand the resignation of the respondent in March this year.
From the evidence given by the respondent it would appear that the marriage between him and the petitioner had not been a happy one
[p.135] of [1974] 1 GLR 133
up to the time he left Kenya for Denmark. But whether a marriage is a happy one or not is subjective. Acts which may make one couple feel happy may disrupt the marriage of another. Despite all that the petitioner had done to the respondent from 1957 up to March 1973, the respondent chose to spend the last Easter with her and their children in Denmark. He further chose to come and live in Ghana with her and to find work to do here. I must say that I do not believe the respondent’s story that he came to Ghana to arrange for judicial separation. If that were so he would not have lived and cohabited with the petitioner from the very day they arrived in Ghana on 13 May 1973, up to 12 October 1973, when he was arrested at the instance of the petitioner. There is evidence that after their arrival here the respondent has had sexual intercourse with the petitioner and that the petitioner accompanied him to the Ministry of Internal Affairs to secure him the necessary permits to enable him to settle in Ghana. She also tried to help him find employment in Ghana. The conduct of the petitioner since they arrived in Ghana in May this year is inconsistent with their marriage having broken down before they came back and their subsequent conduct shows that they were living a normal married life.
The petitioner’s conduct in getting the respondent arrested must be condemned but that single act cannot in my opinion be said to have broken down the marriage beyond reconciliation since there is no evidence that after the arrest of the respondent unsuccessful attempts have been made to reconcile the parties.
Under section 1 (2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), “The sole ground for granting a petition for divorce shall be that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation.” In my opinion, on the evidence on record, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has not broken down. Even if it has, it has not broken down beyond reconciliation. I therefore refuse to dissolve the marriage and the respondent’s cross-petition is dismissed with 0150.00 costs.
DECISION
Cross-petition dismissed.
S. O.
