Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Oct. T., 1973, No. 153, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Mary Ann Travitzky v. Thomas Travitzky.
John P. Yatsko, with him Fitzgerald & Yatsko, for appellant.
John E. Landis, with him Landis, Williams & Kerns, for appellee.
Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Van der Voort, and Spaeth, JJ. (Price, J., absent). Opinion by Hoffman, J. Watkins, P. J., dissents. Price, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
[ 230 Pa. Super. Page 436]
Appellant contends that a support order for her five children is inadequate and that the lower court erred
[ 230 Pa. Super. Page 437]
in failing to take into consideration the separate earnings of the appellee's second wife.
The parties, now divorced, are the parents of six minor children, one of whom resides with the appellee-father. For the past four years, the appellee voluntarily paid child support, starting with payments of $200.00 a week, and gradually reducing said payments to $100.00 a week. Believing this amount to be inadequate, the appellant instituted support proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County.
The relevant facts evidencing the financial status of each of the parties may be summarized as follows:
The appellee is employed as an electrical mechanic at Philadelphia Electric Company, where he earns $357.36 in gross pay a week. Wage records were produced showing that his net pay after social security deductions and taxes was $265.40. The appellee testified that his own weekly expenses for himself, his second wife and two children (a child was born from the second marriage) amounted to $206.22 a week. Evidence was produced showing that, in addition, the father maintained a life insurance policy with his children as beneficiaries and that the children were covered by a hospitalization plan.
The appellant is employed as a night-duty nurse, and has a net income of $135.00 a week. Appellant testified to weekly expenses of $140.00 a week.*fn1 On cross-examination, it was revealed that the residence in which appellant was now residing was not the same as the one in which the parties had lived. ...