JUDGMENT  
In this divorce suit, the Petitioner, Ebenezer Kofi Adom has petitioned this Court praying for the dissolution of the marriage between himself and the Respondent Comfort Akosua Frimpomaa Boateng, on the grounds that the marriage between the Parties has broken down beyond reconciliation.  From the averments in the petition, it would appear that the Petitioner relies mainly   on the alleged desertion and adultery of the Respondent as proof of the said breakdown.  
The petition discloses that the Parties, both Ghanaians were married under the ordinance on the 20th of May 2006 at the Nsawam Road Church of Christ, Accra. After the said marriage they lived together at Alajo in Accra and have one issue, Shadrach Kwabena Amankwaa Adom who was aged 7 years at the time the petition was filed. The Petitioner is a freelance photographer by profession and the Respondent a trader.  
According to Petitioner, Respondent  left the matrimonial home some five years ago as a result of disagreements over various issues, chief among these being, the refusal of Respondent to heed Petitioners warnings against persistently serving Petitioner with food prepared by other tenants of the compound house in which the Parties lived. After Respondents unceremonious departure, Petitioner had 
2  
made countless attempts by himself and through other well-meaning persons to convince Respondent to return to the matrimonial home but Respondent had remained adamant in her decision not to.  In line with this decision Respondent, had three months prior to her departure to her parents’ home at Asiakwa and even thereafter refused to have sex with Respondent. Petitioner further levels the charge of adultery against the Respondent and avers that the Respondent is currently involved in an illicit relationship with one Dada Boat with whom she presently lives.  With respect to the child of the marriage, he charges Respondent with being an irresponsible parent who has abandoned the issue of the marriage to the benevolence of one Ososfo Stephen and avers that the child will be better off with him. Petitioner therefore prays for:  
a) That the said marriage be dissolved  b) That Petitioner be granted custody of the child of the marriage, Shadrach Kwabena Adom .  
The Respondent in her answer filed on the 29th of April 2015 denies all the averments in the petition to the extent that she engaged in the acts complained of by petitioner without just cause and cross-petitions for the following reliefs:  
a) That the marriage be dissolved. b) That the petitioner be made to pay GH¢300 as monthly maintenance fee for the child c) That the Petitioner be made to pay the child’s school fees and medical bills d) That the Petitioner be made to compensate the respondent with a sum of GH¢8000 e) That the Petitioner be made to contribute GH¢200 for the monthly payment of house rent.  Specifically, Respondent testified that she was indeed warned by Petitioner not to take food from co-tenants but insists that because this was a practice that existed between Petitioner and the said tenants long before she joined Petitioner in the said house, she had no choice but to continue in the said practice which involved the exchange and sharing of food between the tenants in the house with Petitioner’s knowledge and sometimes with his active participation. According to her, it was the abruptness with which Petitioner demanded that she ceases the practice that made it difficult for her to comply.  
 Again, in response to Petitioners allegation that she left the matrimonial home unceremoniously and has since refused to return, Respondent explained that she left because of the cruel and inhuman treatment she continuously suffered at the hands of the Petitioner. This included but was not limited to severe beatings and the Petitioner throwing out her belongings anytime they had a disagreement. It was after one such occasion that she travelled to her mother at Asiakwa to treat 
3  
the blood shot eyes she sustained as a result of Petitioner’s beatings that she decided never to return to the matrimonial home or the marriage, for fear of losing her life.  She denied ever committing adultery with one Dada Boat or not caring for the child of the marriage.  According to Respondent, the said Dada Boat is only a former employee of Danex who through her sister, helped her secure a job as a factory hand in the said company.  With regards to the child of the marriage, it is the case of the Respondent that she has not abandoned the child but merely sends him to the said pastor’s house in the mornings to enable him join the pastor’s son who attends the same school as the said child, to school. I have carefully considered the evidence of both Parties and I am of the view that even though Respondent cannot be held totally blameless for the disharmony and misunderstandings in the marriage, it is the violent and physical assaults constantly visited on her by Petitioner that have brought them this far.  For instance, this is what Petitioner had to say in response to questions put to him during cross- examination:  
Q:  I put it to you that when she refused to have sex with you, you beat her mercilessly that is why she left the house to her mothers  
A:  Yes, she refused to have sex with me and I beat her up as a result of her refusal It is also true that she left the matrimonial home as a result. What happened was, I was touching her and she rebuffed my advances, she held my shirt by the collar so when I tried to free myself, my hand touched her and she said I had hit her.  
Q:   I put it to you that you beat her mercilessly, it is not true that you just hit her.  
A:   That is not true.  
Q:   I put it to you that anytime there was a misunderstanding between you and your wife, you do not only beat her but you throw her belongings out of the room.  
A:   It is true but I have something to say, I only did that to scare her.  
I must say that the Respondent sometimes exhibited conduct that I consider unbecoming of a reasonable wife, I am for instance, not impressed by the reason given by Respondent for ignoring Petitioners advice not to serve him food cooked by other tenants, however the above exchange coupled with other pieces of evidence before this court, show the Petitioner up as a violent man given to regular fits of anger. I do not believe Petitioner’s claim that his hand merely touched respondent, as that, to me, was clearly a lame attempt at retracting his earlier admission that he indeed beat up the Respondent.  In any event, Petitioner in my view cannot under any circumstance justify treating 
4  
Respondent with such indignity.  From the evidence on record, this particular misunderstanding arose after Petitioner returned home one day demanding sex after having disappeared from the matrimonial home for two months with his whereabouts unknown to Respondent,  and I do not think that one could in fairness have expected Respondent, human as she is, to readily give in to Petitioner’s  demands without any protestations.  
It is not in dispute that, the parties had at the time of hearing the petition not lived as husband and wife for five years.  It is also not in dispute that Respondent has intimated in no uncertain terms her intention to bring the marriage to an end.   
From the averments in the petition, it appears the Petitioner hinges his petition on sections 2(a), (b), (C), (d) and (f) as proof of breakdown of the marriage. Section 2(3) however, states that the court can still refuse to grant a petition even if the court finds any one or more of the facts listed in paragraphs 2a to f proven unless it is satisfied on all the evidence that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation.  Petitioner avers in paragraph 8r of his petition that the Respondent has behaved in such a way that he cannot reasonably be expected to live with her. I am however not satisfied on the facts that Respondent has behaved in such away that should make it unbearable for Petitioner to live with her, indeed, on the facts, I find the reverse to be the case and I am strengthened in this view by conduct of Petitioner which involved several attempts made to get Respondent to return to the matrimonial home after she left for Asiakwa.  Respondent indeed, could not, be expected to continually put up with the ill treatment meted out to her by Petitioner.   Petitioner himself admits that it was after he beat up the Respondent that she left five years ago for her mother’s home at Asiakwa and has since refused to return.  I find that it is rather the Petitioner who is in constructive desertion. The black’s law dictionary defines constructive desertion as “one spouse’s conduct that forces the other to leave the marital abode, the actions of the offending spouse must be serious enough that the spouse who is forced out of the home finds the continuation of the marriage to be unendurable or dangerous to his or her safety or wellbeing and finds it necessary to seek safety outside the marital domicile”.  Petitioner does not deny physically or emotionally abusing Respondent and Respondent has testified in this Court that she left the matrimonial home because she considered Petitioner’s conduct a threat to her life and limb.  
I must however commend the Petitioner for the obvious show of remorse and contrition for his actions which I consider sincere. Apart from the unchallenged evidence of the several efforts made at reconciliation by himself and through his numerous emissaries, this Court observed from his demeanour throughout the 
5  
trial that he truly regretted his actions. Unfortunately, this cannot change the fact that it is the Petitioner and none other, who has been the author of his own misfortune.  
The Petitioner also levels the grave charge of adultery against the Respondent. Petitioner testified that it is the child of the marriage who told him that Respondent currently lived with one Dada Boat. He maintained that this fact was confirmed by his father in law in the presence of Petitioner’s church elders and that the said elders could attest to this fact. Curiously, none of these persons were called to corroborate Petitioner’s assertion. It is settled law that adultery being a matrimonial offence that is grave and weighty ought to be proved strictly even though not necessarily to the standard required in criminal trials. See the dictum of Sarkodee J in the case of ADJETEY V ADJETEY (1973)1 GLR 216.   
I do not think the evidence of Petitioner led in support of his allegations that respondent has committed adultery meets the required legal standard as the same is uncertain. I therefore hold the charge of adultery not proven against Respondent.   
As regards issues concerning the child of the marriage, this Court at this stage no longer considers it necessary to examine the allegations made by both parties since the evidence on record suggests that the Parties have called a truce on the matter.  I have also declined to go into Respondent’s claims regarding Petitioner’s insistence on having anal sex with her or the claim of Petitioner that Respondent terminated a pregnancy without his consent. This is not only because I am unable, based on the evidence before me, to decide which of the Parties to believe but also because, given the circumstances of this case, I do not think those matters will affect my decision as to whether or not to grant the petition or cross-petition.   
Flowing from the above, the main issue that falls for determination is whether the Petitioner and Respondent are entitled to their respective prayers for a dissolution of the marriage. As already noted in this judgment, the Parties have not lived together as husband and wife for the past five years.  The position taken by Respondent leaves this court in absolutely no doubt that she considers the marriage at an end. Section 2(d) of the act empowers the Court to grant a petition for divorce if it finds that the Parties have not lived as husband and wife for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and the Respondent consents to the said dissolution. The evidence shows that the Parties had lived apart for a continuous period of about four years prior to the presentation of the petition and the Respondent also consents to the said dissolution. On this account and on account of matters already discussed in this judgment I am satisfied that the marriage between the 
6  
Parties has broken down beyond reconciliation.  Accordingly, I grant the Decree of Divorce prayed for by Petitioner and consented to by Respondent. The Parties on the 19th of June, 2015 filed terms of settlement and prayed the Court to adopt same. This court declined the said invitation at the time in view of the mandatory requirement imposed by section 2(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act (SUPRA) that the Court first satisfies itself of the breakdown of a marriage beyond reconciliation before granting a Decree of Divorce.  See also the case of IDDISAH V IDDISAH SUIT NO H1/164/11 CIVIL APPEAL dated 11th November 2011.  
 This Court having satisfied itself of the breakdown of the marriage and having decreed a dissolution of the marriage celebrated between Petitioner and Respondent hereby makes the following orders. By consent of the Parties, custody of Shadrach Kwabena Adom is granted to Respondent with reasonable access to Petitioner. The Petitioner is ordered to provide monthly maintenance of GH¢150 for the upkeep of the child of the marriage in addition to the provision of clothing and the payment of school fees and feeding fees charged by the school as well as medical care.  The Respondent should bear the cost of feeding the child outside school hours,  
Petitioner is hereby ordered to settle on Respondent a lump sum payment of GH¢3000 as financial provision.  
DECISION   Marriage dissolved Each party to bear their own costs.                           [SGD]          MRS. AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH            JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT  
aey/…            