COUSSEY vs. COUSSEY [1959]DLHC2006

Date	1959-02-16
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLHC2006

SARKODEE-ADDO J.

AMANKWATIA FOR APPLICANT.

[1959]DLHC2006
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">COUSSEY <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">COUSSEY<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1959] GLR 151<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
16TH FEBRUARY, 1959.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

AMANKWATIA
FOR APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

SARKODEE-ADDO J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE-ADOO J.<o:p></o:p>(His
lordship stated the facts, and proceeded:-)<o:p></o:p>The
question for consideration is: In what circumstances ought leave be given to a
spouse to present to the Court a petition for divorce within three years of the
marriage? By Section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, (now repealed and
replaced by Section 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950) leave can be granted
only on the ground of exceptional hardship suffered by the would-be petitioner,
or on that of exceptional depravity on the part of the proposed respondent. The
answer to the question, then, depends on the meaning of the word “exceptional.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Different
Judges have interpreted this provision in different ways. “Exceptional
hardship” and “exceptional depravity” have been considered in Winter v. Winter
([1944] P.72), Charlesby v. Charlesby ((1947) 176 L.T. 532), Fisher v. Fisher
([1948] P.263), and Bowman v. Bowman ([1949] P.353). But these cases-and
others-are merely illustrative; they are not exhaustive.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
authorities, the really important consideration in all these cases is to see
whether or not there is “reasonable probability of reconciliation” before the
expiration of the three years. If the husband’s allegations be true, there is,
it is clear, no such probability.<o:p></o:p>In all
the circumstances, I feel it is a proper case in which to grant leave to
present the petition within three years of the marriage. After all, the
applicant’s allegations against the respondent will be investigated at the
hearing of the petition, and if they are untrue the petition will no doubt be
dismissed.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>