Opinion by
This аppeal relates to. an action in divorce instituted by the husband against the wife on the grounds of indignities and desertion. The master recommended that the divorce.be granted on both grounds. Exceptions were dismissed by the court below and the master’s recommendation was approved. The final decree was entered on July 8, 1959, whereupon the wife appealed to this Court.
It would serve no useful purpose to set forth in detail the testimony, spread over 833 typewritten pages, taken on seven days of hearings before the master. We have carefully examined, as we are required to do, all of this testimony and we are of the opinion that the decree of the court below shоuld be sustained upon the charge of indignities to the person. It will, therefore, be unnecessary for us to consider the charge of desertion.
*307 The parties were married on November 22, 1945 and had one child, Nancy. They lived with the wife’s pаrents for approximately six and one-half months and then lived in a duplex apartment occupied by his parents, which had a separate entrance to their apartment, and about three and one-half years prior to the final separation the parties rented and moved into an apartment in Dormont, Pennsylvania, where they remained until the time of the separation, which occurred on or about July 28, 1953. Thereafter the appellee livеd with his parents and the appellant lived at various places but most of the time in Florida, where she had taken Nancy.
The appellee was employed by his father as a meat cutter and worked from about 6:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m., earning аpproximately $61.00 per week. He brought his pay home regularly and gave it to his wife and she managed their financial affairs.
After the parties began living in Dormont the wife developed a great antipathy toward the parents of her husband and objected to her husband working for his father or having any contact with his family. The parties visited her parents frequently and were on good terms with them. The wife would not even permit the husband to call his parents on the telephonе from his home and when he called them from a pay station outside of the home she went into a tirade and warned him that under no circumstances was he to have any conversation or dealings with his parents. When he suggested visiting his parеnts, she stated that if he did she would lock the door and not let him in. She would not permit the child, Nancy, to see his parents and when they sent a snow suit as a gift for the ehild and gifts to him, she threw them down and locked him out of their home so that he had to live in a hotel for three days. She permitted him to return only when he promised not to let his parents send gifts to his home. The *308 wife was ill on occasions and the husband, after working long hours, would return home, prepare the meal and then sometimes did the laundry. The doing of the laundry was corroborated by Mr. and Mrs. Godleski, who testified that they had seen him doing it on a number of occasions. On one occasion, after she had feigned illness and after he had worked all day and prepared the evening meal and done some painting in the apartment, she wanted him to take her out to the movies. Because he was tired and wanted to get some rest he refused to do it. She then turned the lights on and off, increased the radio volume and television volume, slammed doors and created such a disturbance that he had to retire to the bathroom and lock the door in order to sleep. He slept in the bathroom on three different occasions. At оther times, after the arguments with his wife, he had to sleep in the garage. He slept in the garage in his automobile on four or five different occasions. Finally, on or about July 28, 1953, when he called his father from a pay station outside of the аpartment for instructions concerning business prior to his father’s going on vacation, he returned to the apartment and found his clothes in the hall and the front door locked. His wife yelled: “You are never coming back here” and at hеr insistence their daughter Nancy told him: “We aren’t going to have you for a Daddy any moré. We are going to have a new Daddy. I don’t want you ever to come around here.” When he returned later with his uncle, they found the doors locked and the locks changed so that his key would not open the door. This was the culmination of a long series of arguments and fights between the parties which were largely caused because of the wife’s insistence that the husband and their daughter Nаncy should not have any contact with his father and mother. The wife subsequently moved out of the Dormont apartment and took all the furniture with her. He con *309 tinued to pay the rent until October 1953, when she finally moved out.
The principal contеntion of the appellant is that this decree in divorce should not be sustained because it depends largely upon the uncorroborated testimony of the husband. A divorce may be granted upon the uncorroborated testimony оf the plaintiff unless that testimony is not only contradicted but shaken by the defendant:
D’Alessandro v. D’Alessandro,
Thе appellant’s principal contention, therefore, that a divorce should not be granted on the uncorroborated testimony of the appellee has no application to the facts in the present cаse.
“To render applicable the rule that a divorce will not be granted upon plaintiff’s uncorroborated testimony, it must appear that the plaintiff’s testimony was not only contradicted, but shaken by the defendant: Jones v. Jones,
The language of Judge Ross in
Miln v. Miln,
The appellee was only required to prove , his case by clear and satisfactory evidence and there must be a preponderance of the evidence in his favor: D’Alessandro v. D’Alessandro, supra.
Decree affirmed.