RIBY-WILLIAMS vs. RIBY-WILLIAMS [1964]DLHC1950

Date	1964-10-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLHC1950

ARCHER J.

J. C. ARMAH FOR THE PETITIONER.

E. N. MOORE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1964]DLHC1950
																																						<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" >RIBY-WILLIAMS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>RIBY-WILLIAMS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 538<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:
22 OCTOBER 1964.<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">

J. C. ARMAH FOR THE PETITIONER.<o:p></o:p>

E. N. MOORE FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

ARCHER J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.<o:p></o:p>The
petitioner seeks dissolution of the marriage between himself and the respondent
on the ground that the respondent has since the celebration of the marriage
treated the petitioner with cruelty and although it is not expressly stated in
the petition, it seems that paragraph eleven of the petition suggests
constructive desertion by the respondent. The respondent in her amended answer
cross-petitioned for the dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of the
petitioner’s cruelty, desertion and adultery.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
parties were married on 15 April 1948 and co-habited at Christiansborg and
Kaneshie at Accra until their separation. There are two children of the
marriage aged sixteen years and fourteen years respectively. The gist of the
petitioner’s case is that since their marriage they have not had even two
months peace in the matrimonial home. In 1955, the respondent assaulted him
with a stick and his face was bruised. From January to June 1958 the wife would
not perform house wifely duties and took exception to any suggestions made by
the petitioner. Nagging by the respondent was so much that the petitioner used
to sit in a public bar drinking to escape the nagging. About twelve times he
had to sleep on the verandah when he returned home between 11 and 11.30 p.m. in
the evening. In 1958, the nagging was so much that the petitioner had a nervous
breakdown and was in hospital for three months. On his discharge from hospital
the quarrels continued and therefore he left the house. In 1958 he had a
scholarship to go to the United Kingdom and he returned to the matrimonial home
and lived there for two days before his departure. While in England the
respondent wrote a letter exhibit B in which the respondent amongst other
things stated “I have been at fault all along but I assure you all I know is
that we have no past.” The petitioner therefore relied on this letter and the
statement quoted as an admission by the respondent of her responsibility for
the disharmony and misunderstandings in the marriage. On his return from
England in April 1959 he cohabited with the respondent but the quarrels,
nagging and fights continued and just at the time he had made up his mind to
leave, the respondent was admitted in hospital. He waited three or four days
after her discharge and left the matrimonial home on 10 December 1959 with the
children and has never returned. He testified that the respondent was pleased
when he took away the children. This is the evidence for the petition and it
consists only of the evidence of the petitioner himself.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent in her cross-petition and in her evidence denied that she was a
woman of uncontrollable temper. She maintained that it was rather the
petitioner who was a difficult man and would not tolerate any suggestions from
her. In 1957 the petitioner beat her up because she complained of non-payment
of electricity and water bills. She thought the petitioner was morally weak so
far as the fair sex was concerned and had even had sexual intercourse with the
respondent’s near relatives. She denied nagging the petitioner and expressed
the view that if the petitioner had a nervous breakdown then it was due to
overwork and lack of leave which the petitioner had commuted for cash payment.
In one beating, she lost some front teeth. She said that the petitioner left
the matrimonial home in 1958 when she discovered that the petitioner had put a
young school girl in the family way and had questioned the petitioner about it.
She also stated that the petitioner returned late at night sometimes in the
early hours of the morning worse for drink and at times slept in the living
room with his working clothes on. These states of inebriety occurred when the
petitioner was in charge of certain broadcast programmes which took him into
the society of night life. In October 1959 the petitioner accused her of infidelity
and called her a harlot. On her return from hospital the petitioner left with
the children, the cook and houseboy and with certain crockery and glassware and
left her alone a sick woman in the matrimonial home. The last woman who came
into the picture was a Miss Doris Bannerman who has been named in the petition
as an adulteress. This piece of evidence is that of the respondent alone.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
cross-examination certain suggestions were put forward by counsel for both
parties which were intended to show that both parties had indulged in what I
would call “promiscuous concupiscence”—that is uninhibited indulgence in sexual
lust with all and sundry. I was stunned as some of the revelations had not been
pleaded. Before counsel addressed the court I thought it was my duty in the
interest of sex morality in Ghana to ask all non-relatives to leave the court
as I had every cause to apprehend that counsel might be overzealous in dilating
on the sexual prowess of each party. Fortunately, both counsel addressed the
court, in the absence of the public, with moderation and with a sense of
propriety and I wish to express my thanks to both counsel in that respect.<o:p></o:p>