Appeal, No. 148, Oct. T., 1957, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Nov. T., 1954, No. 13, in case of Ida DiNunzio v. Federico DiNunzio. Decree affirmed.
William R. Cooper, with him William P. Manning, Jr., for appellant.
Jules Pearlstine, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
[ 185 Pa. Super. Page 107]
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, dismissing the exceptions filed by the appellant husband to a decree in divorce on the ground of desertion.
The parties were married on June 24, 1917. Ida DiNunzio, the appellee, is 54 years of age and Federico DiNunzio, the appellant, is 65. There are four children born of this marriage, all of whom are adults and living away from their parents. The wife emigrated from Italy with her father when she was two years old and resided in the Borough of Ambler, Pennsylvania, until her marriage in 1917. The husband came to the United States from Italy at the age of sixteen. They lived and resided together in and around the Ambler-Lansdale area until August 10, 1948.
[ 185 Pa. Super. Page 108]
This action in divorce was instituted on the grounds of desertion and indignities to the person. The master who heard the testimony concluded that although the husband did commit indignities to the person of his wife during the 31 years of their marriage, the same occurred with such infrequency that they failed to constitute such a course of conduct as to warrant the granting of a divorce on that ground. He recommended a divorce on the ground of desertion.
The record shows that until 1941, when their two sons entered the army, the parties were relatively happily married; that at this time the appellant resented the payment of monthly allotments by the sons to the mother, which she refused to turn over to the appellant; that as a result of this resentment, there were bitter arguments and the appellant refused to provide sufficient funds for the support of the family; that this caused repeated arguments and intensified bitterness as time passed; that there was ugly dissension over the purchase of property, the payment of mortgage installments, and other family financial problems; so that, finally on August 10, 1948 the appellant moved from their home to a room in the rear of his store on Main Street, Lansdale, and since that time the parties have not lived and cohabited together.
This appeal is based on the argument that although there was clearly a separation from the time alleged, it was not willful and malicious, but instigated, encouraged and consented to by the appellee.
A careful examination of the record, which is largely an effort to prove indignities to the person, results in finding that if appellant had any complaint whatever against his wife, it was disagreements about financial matters and what he called "nagging", as a result of these arguments. As ...