JUDGMENT: The Petitioner and Respondent were married under the Marriages Act 1884 – 1985 (Cap 127), at the Accra Metropolitan Assembly in Accra, on 22nd December 2012.     
The husband – Petitioner filed this Petition against the Respondent his wife seeking a dissolution of the marriage on the grounds that same has broken down beyond reconciliation. The Petitioner averred that both parties are Ghanaian citizens, with the Petitioner currently domiciled in the United States of America, and there are no issues of the marriage. That when the Respondent secured her visa, and Petitioner made travel arrangements for her to join him in March 2013, the Respondent’s attitude changed and she became cold towards him. He averred further that contrary to the Respondent’s assurances that the age difference between the parties was not a problem, when she came to the United States of America, she started to complain about the age difference.  That a previous application filed in the High Court when the marriage was barely two years was not granted by the Court. Petitioner further averred that in September 2013, when he was out of 
2  
a job for October 2013, the Respondent informed her family and she was asked to return to Ghana. That a result of the Respondent’s representations that she did not know when she will return to the United States of America, he was compelled to buy her a one way ticket to Ghana and she returned to Ghana. That all attempts to reconcile the marriage have not been successful.  
The Respondent who was served with the Petition entered appearance to same by Counsel and filed an answer.  By her answer she traversed the averments in the Petition and contended that the application brought by Petitioner in the High Court to for leave to commence divorce proceedings, was dismissed because the assertions made therein were untrue. She averred further that the age was never a problem initially. That the Petition was frivolous and pleaded estoppel per res judicata upon the basis that the present  Petition raises same or similar issues on the basis of which the previous application was dismissed. That it was the Petitioner who refused to arrange for her to go back to the United States after she completed her exams in the University of Ghana, as he was peeved by the dismissal of his application by the High Court. She averred that the marriage has not broken down beyond reconciliation.  
 The suit was set down for trial. The parties subsequently filed terms of settlement on 6th April 2014. Being a matrimonial causes matter, the Court heard evidence of both parties to satisfy itself as to whether or not the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation in accordance with sections 2 (2) and (3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1971 (Act 367).  
The testimony of the Petitioner was given by his Attorney. The Attorney testified that he is a brother of Petitioner. He tendered the Power of attorney as Exhibit A.  According to his testimony, the Petitioner and Respondent were married in December 2012, and only lived together for nine months as Respondent joined the Petitioner in the United States of America in March 2013, and returned to Ghana in December 2013 and the parties have since lived apart.  He tendered the marriage certificate as Exhibit B.  He testified 
3  
further that there are no issues of the marriage. That though she had earlier indicated that she was not worried about the age difference between the parties, after the marriage she became cold and started complaining about the age difference. The Petitioner was born in 1972 and the Respondent in 1989. That this age gap resulted in differences between the parties and all attempts at reconciliation were unsuccessful.  That he was one of a group of family members who went to the Respondent’s father to attempt a reconciliation to no avail. That since the age gap will not change, it is not possible to reconcile their differences and prayed the Court to dissolve the marriage.   
The Respondent testified that she lives at Maledjor in Accra, and that she and Petitioner were married in December 2012 and she joined Petitioner in the United States of America in March 2013, and returned to Ghana in December 2013 and the parties have since been living apart. She stated that the parties have already filed a settlement and prayed for a dissolution of the marriage.  
The testimony of both parties were not controverted by cross- examination as there was none from either party. It is trite that facts not disputed are deemed to be admitted. As I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of either party, I accept the evidence of the parties as being the facts pertaining to the marriage. 
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 re-conciliation. Section 2 (1) of the said Act however, requires that the Petitioner prove one or more of the facts set down in the said section. 
Section 2(1) (f) of Act 367, supra provide as follows; 
 (f) that the parties to the marriage after diligent effort have been unable to reconcile their differences 
After hearing the testimony of both parties, I am satisfied that efforts at reconciliation have failed. I am satisfied that there is no possibility of reconciliation between the parties and that the marriage has indeed broken 
4  
down beyond reconciliation. In the Circumstances, it is therefore decreed that the marriage celebrated between the Petitioner and the Respondent on 22nd December 2012 and evidenced by Marriage Certificate No                                    be and is hereby dissolved forthwith on the ground that same has broken down beyond reconciliation. As the parties filed terms of settlement on 6th April 2016 by which a sum of Twelve Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC 12, 000) was paid to the Respondent, there will be no further order for ancillary reliefs, and no order as to costs.  
         (SGD) HAFISATA AMALEBOBA (MRS) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT.  
COUNSEL: ABRAHAM AMALIBA ESQ FOR PETITONER  JEAN MAURELLET ESQ FOR RESPONDENT.      
              