DORKENOO v. DORKENOO
[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]
DATE: 13TH APRIL, 1962
COUNSEL
J. Quashie-Idun for the wife-applicant.
Tagoe for E. N. Moore for the husband respondent.
JUDGMENT OF JIAGGE J.
This is an application under section 23 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950.1(1) The wife -petitioner
and husband – respondent were married at the Chapel of the University College on the 22nd April,
1955. There are three children to the marriage, Michael 6, John 5 and Kirsty 2 years old. There is one
other child Phillipa 8, a daughter of the respondent but not the petitioner, who looks after all four
children, Phillipa is at a boarding school but comes home for the holidays and the petitioner pays her
fees and transportation.
The petitioner complains that the respondent wilfully neglected to provide reasonable maintenance for
herself and the children, and applies for an order that the respondent makes to her such payments as
may be just for her maintenance and for the maintenance of the children.
According to her, she earns an average monthly income of £G75 as a freelance journalist. Her
husband is also a freelance journalist and earns, according to her, an average income of £G275. The
petitioner claims she needs an average of £G140 a month for maintenance, and broke this figure down
as follows: school fees, £G20; medicine and doctor’s fees, £G10; food £G50; children’s clothes £G20;
travel and entertainment for the children £G10. She proposes to take £G30 a month insurance for the
education of the children. Then she required additional funds for running the house, pay the rent,
steward boy, water and electricity.
[p.275] of [1962] 1 GLR 274
She claims that her husband went to Togoland from July, 1960, to March, 1961 leaving her to do his
work as well as hers and that during that period the total amount paid to their joint account was
£G3,366 16s. 3d. most of which was her earnings. She claimed that apart from two small items worth
£10 10s. her husband earned nothing for the joint account during that period. She claims that the sum
of £G170 was paid into the joint account after that period for work the respondent had done for
Reuters while in Lome. She claims that although the respondent was paid for his services in Lome he
paid nothing, apart from the two items already mentioned, into the joint account during the nine
months he was away in Togoland. The respondent in his evidence admitted he was paid £G100 a
month while he was in Togoland and that he did some extra work as well but could not tell exactly
how much he earned.
The petitioner claims further that respondent withdrew from the joint account a total of £G350 while
he was in Lome and that was part of the money she had earned. The respondent bought a camera
worth about £G200 by writing to one of petitioner’s clients for it. The camera was sent to him, and as
a result the petitioner received no earnings for the work she had done for that client for a period of
two months. The petitioner claims that before the respondent went away to Togoland there was an
overdraft of £G600. While he was away, apart from what he had taken from the joint account and her
expenses, she was able to save £G300 from what she had earned doing his work and her own, and
when the respondent came back the overdraft was still £G600.
From May to August 1961, the respondent took from the joint account £G916. In addition to this the
petitioner had to pay a bill of £G306 being respondent’s business expenses. The respondent spent on
himself a total of £G1,122 from April to August 1961. During the same period petitioner claims she
spent £G939 on herself, the four children, school fees, mortgage on the house, wages and all other
expenses. The overdraft shot to £G1,000 from £G600 within three months after the respondent’s
return from Lome.
[Her ladyship then considered the evidence of the income and expenditure of the parties and
continued:] The attitude of the respondent was very difficult to understand. He gave the impression of
underlying currents of bitterness and great resentment. He complained about his wife neglecting the
children but when he was asked how often he took the children out he said: “It is true that since I
came back I have taken the children out only once and that was last Saturday. I want my wife to
divorce me and then I can have my children to look after. It is true that I came back in February or
March 1961, about one year now”. Under re-examination his explanation was: “It is correct that I took
the children out just once since I came back from Lome and that was last Saturday. The reason is that
there is disagreement between my wife and me regarding the care of the children”. He had to admit,
however, that “these disagreements were not at an end last Saturday”. This application, however, is
under section 23 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950. It is for an order for reasonable maintenance
for wife and children. According to exhibit D the income paid into the joint account from the 1st July,
1960 to the 30th July, 1961 inclusive was £G3,366 16s. 3d. This excludes the £G100 per month the
respondent claimed he earned while he was in Lome from July 1960 to March 1961. The respondent
admitted paying nothing out of the £G100 he received per month into the joint account. The total [p.276] of [1962] 1 GLR 274
joint income from July, 1960 to 30th June, 1961 was therefore £G3,366 16s. 3d. and £G800 (i.e. the
eight months’ earnings in Lome by the respondent). This gives a grand total of £G4,166 16s. 3d.
Exhibit G is a letter sent to Reuters by the respondent who claims: “Our total receipts come to
anything between £G200 and £G400 a month”. It was urged on behalf of the respondent that business
was not always as good as it was during the period from July 1960 to June 1961. It was urged that
exhibits 3 and 4 were better guides on how much was earned as joint income. Exhibit 4 is a statement
of account from the 9th January to the 5th March. I agree with the petitioner’s counsel that exhibit 4 is
no guide. It is the respondent’s case that he was on holidays in January and that it affected his
earnings. It was also pointed out that he omitted to show the £G120 he claimed he received as
monthly retainer in his February account.
I agree that exhibit 3 is important in assessing the average joint income. It was tendered by the
respondent and was prepared by the petitioner at a time when there was no mention of litigation. The
parties then were making an honest effort to cut down their expenses. Exhibit 3 gives the joint income
as £G300 per month and I accept this as a fair average.
Petitioner claimed exhibit 3 was made before the increase in prices as a result of the 1961 National
Budget. I am satisfied that the respondent is guilty of wilful neglect to provide reasonable
maintenance for his wife and children.
I hold that reasonable maintenance for the wife is one-third of the joint income less the wife’s
earnings, i.e. one-third of £G300 less the £G75 the wife earns a month. According to exhibit 3 the
petitioner reckoned she could manage on £G85 a month for food, school fees, children’s clothes,
medical expenses, water and electricity. She claimed this was her estimate before the prices of goods
shot up after the 1961 National Budget. I believe, however, that one must cut the coat according to the
cloth. Both the petitioner and the respondent must learn to economise until the bank overdraft is paid.
I consider £G85 a month adequate maintenance for the four children.
I hold that the reasonable maintenance for the wife and children is one-third of the joint income of
£G300, plus £G85 less £G75, that is a total of £G110. I consider that the petitioner should pay the
sum of £G20 per month towards the repayment of the overdraft until that account is fully settled and
until then the petitioner is entitled to the provision of £G90 a month for the maintenance of herself
and the four children. The respondent in addition must pay the mortgage of £G22 a month on the
house and also the bank overdraft. This leaves the husband a good income of £G123 a month, i.e.
£G300- (£G90 + £G22 + £G65) = £G300 – £G177, which is £G123.
Should the respondent be willing that the petitioner takes an insurance policy for the education of the
children then he must pay to her an additional £G30 a month to make it possible for her to take the
insurance policy. This strictly speaking does not come under maintenance, and I leave this to the good
sense of both the petitioner and the respondent. I award the petitioner the costs of this application
assessed at 50 guineas.
DECISION
Application granted.
