ADDO vs. ADDO [1973]DLHC2351

Date	1973-02-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2351

SARKODEE J.

H. P. SWANIKER FOR THE PETITIONER.

DR. I. S EPHSON FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLHC2351
																																						<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" >ADDO <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ADDO <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
ACCRA]<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;[1973]
2 GLR 103<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
22 FEBRUARY 1973.<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">

H. P. SWANIKER FOR THE PETITIONER.<o:p></o:p>

DR. I. S EPHSON 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE J.<o:p></o:p>The
petitioner prays for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the
ground that their marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation; that they
have not lived as man and wife for a continuous period of over two years and
that the respondent is unreasonably withholding her consent to the grant of a
decree. The petitioner says further that all attempts made at reconciliation
have failed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
parties were married in 1958 and lived and cohabited in Accra. There is no issue
of the marriage but the respondent had children of her own before she was
married to the petitioner. The petitioner, during the subsistence of the
marriage, had four children by other women. He confesses to his adultery but
says that he was forced to behave in that manner by the respondent’s conduct
and persistent nagging.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 15
March 1959, the wife petitioned for divorce on the grounds of the husband’s
adultery and cruelty. She, however, discontinued the suit after the husband had
filed an answer out of time. The husband could not prosecute the answer because
he only cross-prayed for divorce on the ground of cruelty.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
parties have not lived together since 7 March 1969. Before that date, even
though they lived under one roof, there were in effect two households. The
husband charged that his wife had an ungovernable temper, she made life
unbearable for him by persistently abusing and nagging him. As a result he was
disturbed in his work and he developed high blood pressure. He retired from his
work as a result of ill-health which started in 1968. The last time he had
sexual intercourse with his wife was in May 1967 by which time marital
connection had come to a halt. He is firm that there can be no resumption of
cohabitation. Attempts at reconciliation made by two priests and the wife’s own
uncle and relatives failed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>She on
her part says that he denied her the right to sexual intercourse since 1967
because he had satisfaction elsewhere. She had always wished to have sex with
him and sleep in the same room but he refused. When she entered his bedroom he
would kick her with his boots, push her out and lock his door. As a result she
became frustrated and irritated. On such occasions, which were frequent,
especially when he returned home late, she would repair into her own room,
would sing hymns and read psalms aloud and to his hearing. This, which seemed
to annoy him, he called nagging. Lack of sexual intercourse has had an effect
on her health. She saw a doctor who put her on sedatives as treatment for sleepless
nights and irritability. Her blood pressure kept getting low. Despite all this
she says the marriage has not broken down and that she still loves her husband.
She however agrees that her husband is adamant and that his attitude to the
marriage has not changed. He often beats her up and on one occasion, beat her
with a horse whip when he was told that she had attacked one of his paramours
who was then heavy with a child. She denied she attacked her but admitted that
she merely had a row with her. As a result of the beating following this
incident her middle finger got deformed. The husband lives with one of the
women as man and wife.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Upon a
careful survey of the evidence there is no doubt that the parties have not
lived as man and wife since 1969. The hus</main>