Appeal, No. 353, Oct. T., 1963, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Montgomery County, June T., 1963, No. 75, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Margaret J. Munder v. Raymond A. Munder. Order affirmed.
Alan E. Boroff, with him Morris Gerber, and Wisler, Pearlstine, Talong & Gerber, for appellant.
E. C. K. Hall, with him Gilbert P. High, and High, Swartz, Roberts & Seidel, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.
[ 203 Pa. Super. Page 30]
In this non-support proceeding brought by Margaret J. Munder, the wife-appellee, against Raymond A. Munder, husband-appellant, in the Court Quarter Sessions of Montgomery County, under the provisions of The Penal Code (Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, § 733, as amended, 18 PS § 4733), an order was entered for the payment by the husband of $60 per week for the support of his wife.
The husband is 61 years of age, the wife 59. He is in good health; is President and sole stockholder of the
[ 203 Pa. Super. Page 31]
Penn Leasing Company. The husband left his wife on June 14, 1963 and moved to Baltimore, Maryland, where he rented an apartment. The wife is presently living in the house they both occupied for twenty years before the separation. This property is owned jointly so that payments made upon the mortgage, insurance, maintenance, etc., improves his equity in the property. It is a stone house, with a slate roof, six bedrooms, three and one-half baths, living room, dining room, kitchen, pantry, laundry and one and one-third acres of land. They have an offer for the purchase of this home of $37,500 but both have agreed to hold it for $40,000. The sale of the house would reduce the expenses of the wife but both are equally responsible for that situation.
Although the husband did not leave for Baltimore until June 14, 1963, he had advised his wife of his intention to leave the state and she had full knowledge of the fact that he had rented an apartment in that city. He admitted stating to his wife that he would not give her one penny more than $112 per months. Because of this statement and the knowledge that he was leaving the state, on advice of counsel, she filed her information on June 7, 1963. The record indicates that beginning with July his only contribution was $21 per month.
The contention of the husband is that there is legally insufficient evidence to support the charge that the husband failed and neglected to support and maintain his wife; and that under the factual circumstances the order of $60 a week is unreasonable.
The court below found that the wife's expenses in connection with the house were over $50 weekly and her personal expenses approximately $128 per week. He also found that the expenses were incurred while maintaining substantially the same standard of living which she enjoyed when the parties ...