Appeal from orders of County Court of Philadelphia, June T., 1962, No. 2505, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Dorothy L. Bonicker v. John W. Bonicker.
Nicholas M. D'Alessandro, with him Leomporra and D'Alessandro, for appellant.
Philip D. Weiss, for appellee.
Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (Rhodes, P. J., absent). Opinion by Montgomery, J.
[ 205 Pa. Super. Page 192]
On June 20, 1962, relatrix and defendant, wife and husband, by stipulation, had an order made by the County Court of Philadelphia County providing for the
[ 205 Pa. Super. Page 193]
support of wife-relatrix at the rate of $37.50 per week and for the support of their child Donna Marie in the same amount, or a total of $75 per week. This stipulation was predicated on a separation agreement previously entered into by the parties, which provided for the same support payments as set forth in the court order.
On January 8, 1963, the parties were divorced by decree of a court of the State of Nevada, the validity of which is not questioned. This divorce also provided for the future support of relatrix and the child in the same amounts as stated in the agreement. Subsequent to the entry of this decree defendant filed a petition with said Philadelphia County Court to vacate its order as to his wife, to reduce the order as to the child, and to remit arrearages on the order for support of the wife which had occurred after the divorce.
Also subsequent to the divorce relatrix filed a petition with the Philadelphia County Court for the attachment of defendant for failure to abide by the order of the court, and at the same time a second petition for support for herself and child, which was determined by that court as unnecessary and surplusage since it sought an order that would have duplicated the previous one; and a third petition, asking that court to give recognition to and enforce that part of the Nevada divorce decree which provided for the support of herself and child. This provision was incorporated in the Nevada decree by agreement of the parties and was also predicated on the aforementioned separation agreement.
After hearing on all petitions, that court found that the relationship of the parties had changed materially, not only by reason of the divorce, but also by a substantial reduction in the defendant's income; and it granted the defendant's petition by vacating the order for support for the wife and reducing the order for
[ 205 Pa. Super. Page 194]
the child from $37.50 per week to $20 per week. It dismissed the wife's new petition for support and continued her petition for the attachment ...