JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.
On 2 September 1958 John Yaw Danquah, the petitioner herein, lawfully took to wife at the district registry of marriage, Tarkwa, Mary Dawson Amoah and thenceforth to be known as Mary Danquah the respondent herein. After the said marriage the couple lived and cohabited at Tarkwa, Dunkwa-on-Offin, and finally at Cape Coast. There are two female issues of the marriage both of whom have, according to the petitioner, had the benefit of university education and are now in employment. The petitioner is presently employed in the accounts branch of the University of Cape Coast whilst the respondent is a senior school teacher at Cape Coast. The husband has filed a petition for divorce disclosing the following facts:
"(4) That there have been proceedings previous hereto in this honourable court with reference to the said marriage and the children of the said marriage by the petitioner but the matter was settled, and an order made by the court for maintenance of the children.
(5) That in the year 1971, the respondent left the matrimonial home and has since refused to return. The respondent left home after a misunderstanding between her and your petitioner and all efforts to get her to return home failed.
(6) That the respondent has frequently committed adultery with person or persons unknown, and that by reason of such adultery the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent.
(7) That from the time in 1971 when the respondent left the matrimonial home aforesaid, the respondent has been habitually committing adultery with person or persons unknown.
(8) That the said marriage has therefore broken down beyond reconciliation.
(9) That your petitioner has not in any manner been accessory to, or connived at or condoned the adultery alleged in this petition.
(10) That this petition is not presented or prosecuted in collusion with the respondent."
Whilst admitting averments contained in paragraph (4) of the petition the respondent charged in her answer that the petitioner disobeyed the order for maintenance of the children and that this has been her sole responsibility. Her answer ran on:
"(3) The respondent vehemently denies the averments contained in paragraph (5) of the petition and will at the hearing put the petitioner to strict proof of those averments.
In further answer to the said paragraph (5) the respondent states that some time in 1972, the elder daughter of the marriage became pregnant and the petitioner sacked