No. 87 October Term, 1979, Appeal from Order of Support entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, the 38th Judicial District of Pennsylvania on December 19, 1978, in Domestic Action 78-417.
Drew Salaman, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Robert Weiner, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Spaeth, Stranahan and Sugerman, JJ.*fn*
[ 277 Pa. Super. Page 221]
This is a support case in which the husband and wife have chosen to remain in the home together. However, this decision has not lessened their controversy, instead it has made it more bitter because each accuses the other of doing petty things of an annoying nature.
The husband accuses the wife of "going on strike" as far as her household duties are concerned. The wife retaliates by claiming a "lock out" as far as her husband's willingness to provide her with food and other necessaries. The testimony concerning the controversies is lengthy but need not be reviewed in detail for the purposes of this opinion.
Judge Honeyman, who handled this matter at the hearing level, concluded that "the husband has almost totally failed to provide food for the wife."
From these facts Judge Honeyman decided: "He (husband) cannot be heard to contend that he is adequately supporting his wife by simply providing shelter for her and paying the utilities. Therefore, the Court concludes that the wife is entitled to an order of support."
The hearing judge has the best opportunity to decide the facts since he observes the witnesses and can best pass on their credibility. Gehres v. Gehres, 233 Pa. Super. 144, 334 A.2d 753 (1975); Uhlinger v. Uhlinger, 169 Pa. Super. 574, 83 A.2d 423 (1951). Certainly the findings of the trial judge based on credibility should not be reversed by the appellate court unless there is a capricious disregard of competent evidence.
[ 277 Pa. Super. Page 222]
While the appellant may point to conflicting testimony on the issue of support, we believe that Judge Honeyman was correct in reaching his conclusion that support ...