GH - BEATRICE OYE-PLOKHAAR vs STERIAN PLOKHAAR

The petitioner herein, a Ghanaian citizen, was lawfully married to the Respondent herein, a Dutch national, under the Marriage Ordinance (Cap 127) on the 3rd day of January, 2009, in Accra. After the said marriage, the parties cohabited at Mariville Home at Manet Courts in Accra. They have had one issue, Master Sterian Plokhaar Junior, who was aged 2 ½ years at the time the petition was filed.

The petitioner contends that the marriage between the parties has, however, broken down beyond reconciliation on account of the respondent’s violent and unreasonable behavior, as well as his promiscuous and adulterous nature, to the extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to continue to live with him. The petitioner, therefore, on 1st June 2012, commenced the instant action by filing a petition praying for the following reliefs:

a. That the said marriage celebrated between the parties on 3rd January 2009 be dissolved for the reasons stated above.

b. That the custody of the only child of the marriage be given to the petitioner with occasional visitation rights to the respondent.

c. That the respondent be ordered to make a lump sum payment of GH¢200,000.00 to the petitioner as alimony for this divorce.

d. That the respondent be ordered to pay a monthly sum of GH¢1,500.00 as maintenance for the child.

e. That the respondent be ordered to pay all educational and medical expenses in relation to their only child.

f. That the respondent be ordered to provide suitable accommodation befitting their previous status of accommodation to the petitioner and their child.

g. That the respondent be ordered to provide a suitable means of transportation, preferably a saloon car, for the petitioner and their child.

h. That the respondent be ordered to pay the legal costs of this action.

i. Any other order or orders as this Honourable Court deems fit.

The respondent entered conditional appearance on 13th June 2012 but went on to file his answer and cross-petition on 27th July 2012. The petitioner’s case is that she was formerly gainfully employed, but she is presently unemployed, whereas the respondent is an international businessman. The petitioner, therefore, has no assets and has become a great burden to her parents and friends.

She contends that there have been previous proceedings in the District/Juvenile Court Accra regarding the interim maintenance of the child of the marriage and that the marriage between them has broken down beyond reconciliation on