VICTORIA ALIGBOH ARMAH vs. EMMANUEL AYITEY ARMAH [2020]DLHC10743

Date	2020-07-03
Suit No.	SUIT NO: DM 0084/2019
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC10743

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE HAFISATA AMALEBOBA (MRS)

EMMA JEAN MARKIN ESQ. FOR OLIVIA ANKU - TSEDE ESQ. FOR THE PETITIONER.

CHARLES DARKO YEBOAH ESQ. FOR RESPONDENT.

[2020]DLHC10743
																																						<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" >VICTORIA ALIGBOH ARMAH<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EMMANUEL AYITEY ARMAH<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>EMMA JEAN MARKIN ESQ. FOR OLIVIA ANKU -
TSEDE ESQ. FOR THE PETITIONER.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CHARLES
DARKO YEBOAH ESQ. FOR RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP
JUSTICE HAFISATA AMALEBOBA (MRS)<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;The
Petitioner and Respondent, both Ghanaian citizens, were married at the Accra
Technical Training Centre on 20th November 2010, under the Marriages
Act, 1884 – 1985 (CAP 127). After the marriage, the parties cohabited at Haatso
and moved to Pantang near the Psychiatric Hospital. There are no issues of the
marriage.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Petitioner asserted that, the marriage
celebrated between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation, on
account of the unreasonable behaviour of the Respondent and irreconcilable
differences between the parties. She caused this Petition to issue, seeking a
dissolution of the marriage between the parties and costs of the action. &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>The Respondent who was served with the Petition
entered appearance through Counsel. He filed an Answer by which he denied the
Petitioner’s assertions of unreasonable behaviour. He averred that, the marriage
between the parties has broken down, due rather to the Petitioner’s
unreasonable behaviour and irreconcilable differences between the parties. He
cross-petitioned for a dissolution of the marriage between the parties.<o:p></o:p>The Petitioner filed a Reply and Answer to
Cross-Petition. The pleadings were closed and the suit was set down for trial.
Subsequently, however, the parties filed Terms of Settlement, praying among
others, that the Court adopt same, as Consent Judgment between them. <o:p></o:p>In view of
the Terms of Settlement filed, the only issue for determination in this suit,
is whether or not, the marriage between the parties, has broken down beyond
reconciliation. By Section 1 (2) of the
Matrimonial Causes Act of 1971 (Act 367), the sole ground upon which an
order for dissolution of a marriage can be made is that, the marriage has
broken down beyond reconciliation. Section 2 (1) of the said Act, however,
requires that the Petitioner prove one or more of the facts set out in the said
section. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Being a
Matrimonial Cause, the Court is duty bound, regardless of the Terms of
Settlement filed and in accordance with sections 2 (2) and 2 (3) of the
Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), to enquire into the marriage of the
parties, by hearing their testimony, for a determination, as to whether or not,
the marriage celebrated between the parties, has broken down beyond
reconciliation.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Both parties
testified and called no witnesses. From the evidence adduced before the Court,
there is no dispute that, the parties had differences. These differences
resulted in physical altercations between the parties. The Respondent subsequently
vacated the matrimonial home. Efforts by the pastors, friends and families of
the parties, to assist the parties to reconcile their differences, proved futile.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;By Section 2
(1) (f) of Act 367, supra, where the parties have been unable to reconcile
their differences after diligent effort, the Court may proceed to dissolve the
marriage. Upon the evidence adduced before the Court therefore, I am satisfied
that the marriage celebrated between the Petitioner and Respondent, has broken
down beyond reconciliation, on account of irreconcilable differences.<o:p></o:p>