Appeal, No. 207, April T., 1957, from order of County Court of Allegheny County, 1956, No. 552, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Pauline Heineman v. Richard Heineman. Order reversed.
Frank P. Paz, for appellant.
George H. Ross, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
[ 185 Pa. Super. Page 33]
The parties were married in 1940.On March 19, 1956, the relatrix in this proceeding charged that her
[ 185 Pa. Super. Page 34]
husband had separated himself from her and that he had refused to support her and their children since June 31, 1955. When the matter came on for hearing on April 9, 1956, the defendant with the relatrix's consent agreed to an order of court requiring him to pay his wife $500 per month for her support and the support of their two minor daughters. The court accordingly, by Judge KAUFMAN entered an order against the defendant in that amount without the taking of testimony, thus giving effect to the agreement of the parties in settlement of the case.
On August 7, 1957, the relatrix petitioned the court for an increase in the amount of the order alleging that it was inadequate for the "needs of herself and children." She also sought an attachment of the defendant to compel him to pay $1,250, the amount that he then admittedly was in arrears on the order. After hearing on the petition held on September 10, 1957, the lower court (MCBRIDE, J.) decreased the previous support order from $500 to $450 per month, and in effect allowed the defendant five years within which to make good his default on the order, by payments of but $20 per month on the $1,250 then in arrears. Moreover this order was made although the defendant had not petitioned the court for a reduction in the amount of the order nor for terms in the payment of the amount in arrears.
In the argument before us the appellant says that the defendant is a doctor of medicine with an established practice, earning in excess of $30,000 per year; and that at the hearing in the present proceeding there was no evidence of any change in his financial status since the date of the original support order. Counsel for appellee on the other hand in his argument denied that defendant's annual income is $30,000 and he asserted that the defendant is heavily in debt; he further
[ 185 Pa. Super. Page 35]
contended that it was developed at the hearing that the cost of maintaining relatrix and the two ...