SETH KWASI AMPEM DARKO vs. DEBORAH ABENA AMOAKOAH [2020]DLHC10751

Date	2020-07-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO: DM 258/2019
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC10751

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE HAFISATA AMALEBOBA (MRS)

FRANK KUDOH ESQ. FOR DR. JOE ATTIPOE ESQ. FOR THE PETITIONER.

DIVINE KAFUI AKPALU ESQ. FOR RESPONDENT.

[2020]DLHC10751
																																						<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" >SETH KWASI AMPEM DARKO<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DEBORAH ABENA AMOAKOAH<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>FRANK KUDOH ESQ. FOR DR. JOE ATTIPOE
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">DIVINE
KAFUI AKPALU 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, were married at the Accra Metropolitan Assembly, on
5th January 2013, under the Marriages Act, 1884 – 1985 (CAP 127).
After the marriage, the parties cohabited at Abeka in Accra. The parties have
four (4) issues of the marriage, comprising
two (2) set of twins namely: Nathan Kwaku Ampem Darko and Nathaniel Ampem Darko
aged five (5) years and seven (7) months old respectively and Richmond Ampem
Darko and Richard Ampem Darko, aged two (2) years and seven (7) months old.<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. He caused this Petition to issue, seeking: a
dissolution of the marriage between the parties and that custody of the children
of the marriage be granted to the Respondent, with reasonable access to the
Petitioner.<o:p></o:p>The Respondent who was served with the Petition
entered appearance through Counsel. She filed an Answer by which she denied the
Petitioner’s assertions of unreasonable behaviour. She averred that, the
marriage between the parties has not broken down, as the differences between
the parties are reconcilable. She however cross-petitioned for a dissolution of
the marriage and for ancillary reliefs. <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 the Petitioner initially vacating the matrimonial home. The
Petitioner subsequently secured alternative accommodation for the Respondent,
who then had to vacate the matrimonial home. Efforts by the Church elders and
families of the parties to assist them to reconcile their differences, proved
futile. The parties currently live apart.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;By Sect</main>