MR. MISSAH vs. MRS. MISSAH [2022]DLHC11639

Date	2022-01-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO: E6/33/19
Citation No.	[2022]DLHC11639

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE J.

BEN ACKAAH-GYASI ESQ FOR PETITIONER

KWEKU SAM-AMOAH ESQ FOR RESPONDENT.

[2022]DLHC11639
																																						<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" >MR. MISSAH<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MRS. MISSAH<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<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" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT
NO: E6/33/19&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; DATE: 18TH
JANUARY, 2022<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>BEN ACKAAH-GYASI ESQ
FOR PETITIONER&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>KWEKU SAM-AMOAH ESQ FOR RESPONDENT.<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" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;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">CORAM 
HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>

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

</div>&nbsp;In
this divorce petition, the parties contracted marriage under the Ordinance on 3rd
April, 2004 at the Wesley Methodist Cathedral, Sekondi. Prior to the marriage,
the petitioner was a widower. After the marriage, the parties co-habited within
the Sekondi-Takoradi metropolis. There are no issues in the marriage. There had
not been any previous proceedings regarding the marriage.<o:p></o:p>The
petitioner claims the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation citing
unreasonable behaviour on the part of the respondent and their irreconcilable
differences. Petitioner catalogued the unreasonable behaviour of the Respondent
as follows:<o:p></o:p>i.
That the Respondent is extremely hostile to the Petitioner and frequently
subjects the Petitioner to verbal abuse using very unprintable words against
the Petitioner especially in public and thereby reducing the image and
reputation of the Petitioner.<o:p></o:p>ii.
That the Petitioner and the Respondent do not communicate as husband and wife.
The Respondent only speaks to the Petitioner when she is in a good mood.<o:p></o:p>iii.
The Respondent has increasingly shown by her actions and inactions that she
does not respect the Petitioner. This is because, she does the opposite of what
the Petitioner wants her to do.<o:p></o:p>iv.
The Respondent denies sex to the Petitioner and on one occasion when the
Petitioner made an attempt, the Respondent severely hit the Petitioner in the
eye resulting in the Petitioner having a swollen eye which led the Petitioner
reporting the matter to WAJU.<o:p></o:p>v.
The Respondent is disrespectful to the family members of the Petitioner
including the Petitioner’s mother and neither does she speak to the children of
the Petitioner from his previous marriage and thereby ostracizing the
Petitioner from his family and children.<o:p></o:p>vi.
The Petitioner and the Respondent are not compatible and disagree on almost everything.<o:p></o:p>vii.
The Respondent is also hostile to the children of the Petitioner from the
previous marriage to the extent that the children had been confined to the
boys’ quarters without having any rights to go to the main house.<o:p></o:p>viii.
The Respondent by her actions and inactions does not make the Petitioner happy.<o:p></o:p>In
an amended answer, the Respondent denies the allegations set forth by the
petitioner. Respondent also accused the petitioner of unreasonable behaviour
and crossed petition for the dissolution of the marriage. She makes allegations
relating to physical and mental abuse on her perpetrated by the petitioner. She
claims that the Petitioner mistreats her, beats her up and calls her names in
public to ridicule her. She states further that the Petitioner does not have
any respect for her except when he wants sex. <o:p></o:p>Respondent
also says that, it is not true that she denies the Petitioner sex and that she
has even aided the Petitioner in his love making with what “Kamasutra” lessons
for which the Petitioner has shown a lot of interest.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Respondent further says that she has a
very cordial relationship with the Petitioner’s family and that it is rather
the Petitioner who sows seeds of discord between her and the children after she
has brought them together.<o:p></o:p>Respondent
prays for a fifty percent (50%) share of the value of the Property on Plot 60
Butumagyebu Ridge and a 50% share of the Property on unnumbered Plot near
V.R.A. Ketan to be given to her in addition to a GH¢400,000.00 [Four Hundred
Thousand Ghana Cedis] compensation.<o:p></o:p>It
is clear from the foregoing that this court is called upon to determine two key
matters; whether or not the marriage between the parties ought to be dissolved
and if so whether the respondent (cross-petitioner) is entitled to the list of
ancillary reliefs sought.<o:p></o:p>Now,
the statutory prescription that the sole ground for g</main>