Husband appeals from an order of the trial court awarding wife temporary custody of the three children of the marriage, temporary maintenance, temporary child support, and attorney’s fees on account. This pendente lite order in the dissolution action is final and appealable.
In re Marriage of Deatherage,
Husband’s first attack is on the order directing payment of utilities on the basis that the order is vague and indefinite and open-ended in that wife has control over the extent of utilities used (particularly long-distance telephone). Assuming that the order is subject to such attack, 1 it is easily correctible. The only evidence, un-contradicted, of utility expense was the wife’s estimate of $300 per month. Pursuant to Sec. 512.160.3 RSMo 1978 we are authorized to give such judgment as the trial court should have given. We therefore will order the reference to utilities stricken from the order and increase the monthly award of maintenance by $300.
Next husband attacks the mortgage provision on the basis that Sec. 452.315 RSMo 1978 does not authorize a court to require a party to pay established debts and liabilities of the parties. We disagree. Husband cites no authority denying a court such power and concedes that such authority does exist in a final decree determining the rights of the parties.
Cain v. Cain,
Husband next complains of the amount of the total award of maintenance, child support, utilities and the mortgage. We have reviewed the transcript and exhibits and find no error. The issue of the *683 husband’s income was sharply contested and we conclude that giving deference to the trial court on credibility there was evi-dentiary support for finding sufficient income in the husband to warrant the awards made. No argument can be made on the evidence that the financial needs of the wife and children did not equal or exceed the awards as made. Husband challenges the award of maintenance on the basis that the wife is capable of working and earning some of the income necessary to meet her needs. There is no question the wife is capable of working. At the time of the hearing she was attending college to improve her potential employment status. We must keep in mind that the award here is for temporary maintenance pending trial of the entire case on all issues including the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, which husband denies. Whether wife’s additional education is necessary or desirable for her future employment, and whether rehabilitative maintenance or any maintenance is warranted, will be decided at that trial. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in refusing, on a motion for temporary maintenance, to require the wife to give up her educational pursuits and seek employment prior to full and final determination of the status of the marriage and the wife’s needs. Temporary awards are just that — temporary—intended to maintain the status quo pending final judgment. It would be contrary to that intention to require the wife to give up her education, which may be necessary for her future employment, and seek work before the full evidentiary hearing prior to final judgment, particularly where the evidence establishes the husband’s ability to pay the maintenance.
Husband’s final attack is on the award of attorney’s fees. This attack again raises husband’s ability to pay and wife’s employability. For the reasons heretofore stated, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s award.
Murphy v. Carron,
Order of the trial court is amended to delete provision for payment of utilities by husband and provide for monthly temporary maintenance of $700 and as amended is affirmed.
Notes
.
See Loomstein v. Mercantile Trust Nat’l. Assoc.,