JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.
This is an action for the dissolution of the marriage contracted on 29 September 1973 by Mr Kwamina Atta Erskine, barrister-at-law, who has his permanent place of abode at No 55 Chapel Hill, Takoradi, and Mrs Justina Gyanba Erskine, the supervisor of Planned Parenthood Association of Ghana, stationed at Takoradi. It is the husband, Kwamina Atta Erskine, who petitioned for an order to dissolve the marriage. The main ground for which divorce was sought was that since January 1975 the wife had been guilty of desertion and from all indications the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation. In her answer to the petition the wife admitted desertion but gave reasons for her conduct. The petitioner disputed the validity of those reasons and challenged the wife to substantiate her allegations. When the case became ripe for hearing counsel for the wife stated that his instructions were that the wife had no objection to the dissolution of the marriage but was prepared to pursue her cross-petition that the custody of the eight-year old son under the wrecked marriage be granted to her. As if he was under a reciprocal obligation the husband renounced this contest for the custody of the son. Under the circumstances, the court spared no time in ordering immediate dissolution of the marriage and granting custody of the son to the wife and, intuitively, proclaimed that there would be no order as to costs.
At this stage counsel for the wife submitted that his client was entitled to costs because, as he put it, the practice in matrimonial causes had been that the husband was obliged to pay his wife's costs. He referred to Tolstoy on Divorce (5th ed), chap 12, pp 204-205 on [p.252] costs between husband and wife and also to Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd ed). Vol 19, paras 1401 and 1427 on costs of proceedings for divorce or judicial separation. The husband in person disputed this proposition and in reply referred to Miller, Family Property and Financial Provision. p 4 of the introductory chapter and submitted that the legal position was that husband and wife were placed on an equal footing with regard to financial provision and a husband was no longer bound to pay his wife's costs in matrimonial proceedings. I would endeavour to restate the legal position as it was some years ago and to ascertain its development up to date.
It is well-known that where no provision is made by our High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (LN 140A), then under t
