Appeal, No. 183, Oct. T., 1957, from order of Municipal Court of Philadelphia County, D.R. No. 198,847, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Edna M. Holzbaur v. Paul L. Holzbaur. Order affirmed.
Barnie F. Winkleman, with him George D. Parrish, for appellant.
No argument was made nor brief submitted for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
[ 185 Pa. Super. Page 344]
The appellant was receiving $15 per week from her husband under an order of support entered in New Jersey, when she petitioned the Municipal Court of Philadelphia for an order of support.
The testimony at the hearing established that her husband resided in Philadelphia, and that since the date of the New Jersey order she had suffered illness and unemployment.
The court below dismissed the petition on the ground that to enter an order of support on top of the one already in being in New Jersey, which is being obeyed, "would place an unfair, excessive and undue burden on this defendant." The court below, in its opinion went further and indicated that it not only should not, but that it could not, enter an order while the defendant was complying with an order made against him in New Jersey.
The appellant submits to us this question: "Where a wife, citizen of New Jersey, has obtained a support order in New Jersey, against her husband, a citizen of Pennsylvania, following service of process upon him in New Jersey, can a Petition for additional Support, based upon a change of circumstances, be brought in Pennsylvania?"
As we understand the proceeding in the court below it was not brought under the Uniform Enforcement
[ 185 Pa. Super. Page 345]
of Support Law of May 10, 1951, P.L. 279 as amended by the Act of August 19, P.L. 1201, 62 PS § 2043.1 et seq. but either under section 733 of the Act of June 24, 1939, as amended, 18 PS § 4733, or under The Pennsylvania Civil Procedural Support Law of July 13, 1953, P.L. 431, 62 PS § 2043.31. It is not ...