34 A.2d 266 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1943
Argued September 30, 1943.
This is an action brought by the wife for her support under § 733 of the Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, 18 PS 4733, in substance, a reenactment of the Act of April 13, 1867, as amended. Com. v. Shankel,
The wife's testimony is that on Christmas day 1941, she went to visit her daughter in Frackville with the consent of defendant; that when she returned three days later he and his daughter, who had recently returned to his home, assaulted her and defendant then ejected her from his house and in effect told her not to return. The wife testified that she had sold a business, conducted by her before her marriage, for $1,600; that all of this money had been used by defendant to buy an automobile and, when that was wrecked, for the purchase of a second car, title to which was registered in both their names. After her eviction the wife gained possession of the automobile then owned by them. In March 1942 there was an agreement between the parties to resume cohabitation. The wife then returned the car to defendant for the purpose of finding a suitable house in Mahanoy City as agreed, but according to her testimony his promise apparently was but a subterfuge to regain possession of the automobile; he never established a new home nor requested his wife to return to their former home in Middleport. Defendant denied that he had assaulted his wife or that he had driven her from his *460 home and at the hearing expressed a willingness to resume cohabitation.
The only sufficient cause justifying a husband's refusal to support his wife is conduct on her part which would be a valid ground for divorce. Com. v. Henderson,
Our duty is to ascertain whether there is evidence to sustain the order of the court below on any valid ground. Com. ex rel.Boysen v. Boysen,
The weight of the evidence, under the attending circumstances, is with the relator and we find nothing justifying a reversal.
Order affirmed.