Pascale v. Pascale

Full title: RALPH PASCALE vs. ROSE PASCALE

Court: Superior Court New Haven County

Date published: Jul 19, 1937

5 Conn. Supp. 224 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1937)

Opinion

File No. 52775

Herbert L. Emanuelson, Attorney for the Plaintiff.

Levy Levy, Attorneys for the Defendant.

In this action in which the plaintiff husband seeks an annulment, the wife has filed three motions; one for alimony pendente lite, one for an allowance to defend, and one for the support of the child. That under Sec. 5188, Gen. Stat., Rev. of 1930, the Superior Court may order alimony paid only upon final judgement; therefore the motion for alimony pendente lite is denied. "The expense necessary for a wife . . . to defend the action against her for a divorce or annulment of the marriage, is usually allowed the wife; this is a recognized part of our procedure"; therefore, the motion for an allowance to defend is granted. As the motion for the support of the child does not allege it is "a child of the marriage", it is defective and the motion is denied.

MEMORANDUM FILED JULY 19, 1937.

ELLS, J.

Here is a new question of law, — has this Court power to order alimony pendente lite in an annulment case?

The husband alleges the marriage "was accomplished through the aid of intimidation, duress and threat, and was not of the free will and accord of the plaintiff". The wife has filed three motions, — one for alimony pendente lite, one for an allowance to defend, and one for support of the child.

"Alimony is the creature of statute" Cary vs. Cary, 112 Conn. at 258. Our statutes allow it, both pendente lite and upon final judgment, in divorce actions (Sec. 5182); but in annulment proceedings grant it only upon final judgment (Sec. 5188). The first motion is therefore denied.

As to an allowance to defend. "The expense necessary for the wife to carry on her own action for divorce or separation, or to defend the action against her for a divorce or annulment of the marriage, is usually allowed the wife; this is a recognized part of our procedure." Valuzzo vs. Valuzzo, 104 Conn. at 155. This case, not cited by either party in its brief, is decisive, and the matter being within the sound discretion of the Court, the motion is granted, and the sum of $75. ordered paid within two weeks of this date.