ARKU vs. ARKU AND ABRAHAM [1965]DLHC1780

Date	1965-04-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLHC1780

DJABANOR J.

AMUA-SEKYI FOR THE PETITIONER.

BRITE GAISIE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

ATTA ERSKINE FOR THE WOMAN-NAMED.

[1965]DLHC1780
																																						<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" >ARKU <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ARKU AND ABRAHAM <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 269<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:
12 APRIL 1965.<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">

AMUA-SEKYI FOR THE PETITIONER.<o:p></o:p>

BRITE GAISIE FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

ATTA ERSKINE FOR THE WOMAN-NAMED.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF DJABANOR J.<o:p></o:p>In this
divorce suit the petitioner John Henry Arku has petitioned this court praying
that his marriage with the respondent, Ernestina Henrietta Arku, be dissolved
on the two grounds that the respondent has deserted him and had committed
adultery with one Mr. Abraham. He asked that the court may exercise its
discretion in his favour in respect of his own adultery with one Miss Sabina
Grant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent, while admitting her adultery with the said Mr. Abraham, and praying
for the exercise of the court’s discretion in her favour because her husband’s
conduct conduced to her adultery, also cross-petitioned that she may be
judicially separated from the petitioner on the grounds of his adultery and
desertion.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
learned counsel for the petitioner found five issues involved in this suit-two
of which were admitted-these are:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(a)
Whether the respondent committed adultery with Mr. Abraham-this was admitted.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(b)
Whether the petitioner committed adultery with Sabina Grant-this was also
admitted.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(c)
Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(d)
Whether the petitioner deserted the respondent.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(e)
Whether the petitioner committed adultery with a Miss Paulina Eshun.<o:p></o:p>I will
first deal with the charges of desertion one against the other. It is easier
because both parties are relying on the same facts or incident. From the
evidence it appears that one evening in 1957 (according to the petitioner) or
1955 (according to the respondent) the respondent left the house to visit Madam
Ama Nyame - the aunt of the petitioner. According to the petitioner she
returned very late. But the respondent said she returned just after dark, and
certainly before the close of evening church service. I do not attach much
importance to the time when she returned, because the petitioner admitted that
he got to know that the respondent had been to his own aunt - the woman who
apparently had asked the hand of the respondent in marriage for the petitioner.
When she came back to the house the husband was very resentful and I believe
that there was a quarrel and he beat the respondent. The petitioner was almost
boastful of the fact that he frequently fought with the respondent. I do not
think that one can in fairness describe these brawls as fights. It was a
beating of the wife at all times. The evidence as to what led to the brawl on
this night was given by the two parties. From their demeanour I had no
hesitation in my assessment that the respondent impressed me as truthful and
that the petitioner was the reverse. From her evidence and the impression I got
from the petitioner he must have been most unreasonable. Even if that very
night he did not know that the respondent had been with his aunt, there could
be no excuse for his persistence in the quarrel after he had learnt that she
had been with his aunt. If he locked her out and she left the matrimonial home
because of that disgrace, surely when he knew that she had all the time been
with Mami Nyame, the petitioner should, if that was the sole cause of the
differences, have sent for the respondent. But apparently this alleged late
night would not appear to be the sole cause. The petitioner did not say that
the respondent had been over indulgent in these late nights, and no other
reason has been given for the departure from the house by the respondent.
Although the petitioner</main>