Case Name: Peggy H. HINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Jefferson HINES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1970-10-13
Citations: 240 So. 2d 799
Docket Number: No. 11497
Parties: Peggy H. HINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Jefferson HINES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before AYRES, DIXON and PRICE, JJ-
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 240
Pages: 799–800

Head Matter:
Peggy H. HINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Jefferson HINES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11497.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Oct. 13, 1970.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1970.
Campbell, Campbell, Marvin & Johnson by Charles A. Marvin, Minden, for defendant-appellant.
John S. Stephens, Coushatta, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before AYRES, DIXON and PRICE, JJ-

Opinion:
DIXON, Judge.
Defendant-husband appeals from an alimony judgment rendered in a divorce action.
Appellant contends that the award of permanent alimony was greater than the award for alimony pendente lite. There is no judgment in the record awarding alimony pendente lite; the judgment granting the separation is silent as to alimony. Nevertheless, the minutes show that defendant was ordered to "deliver to plaintiff for the support of minor children and alimony pendente lite, three-fifths of his net pay, beginning November 30, 1968."
Appellant says this amounted to payments of $96.00 each, paid twice a month, and complains that he has now, in the divorce action, been condemned to pay $104.-00 twice a month. The judgment makes no distinction between alimony for the wife and alimony for the children.
Gross pay for the husband is $740.00 a month. His two children are about four and six years of age. His wife, the appel-lee, is not employed but has recently been trained and licensed as a beautician. Ap-pellee testified that she and the children could "get by" on not less than $300.00 a month, and itemized necessary expenses exceeding this amount.
There is no support for appellant's argument that the trial judge abused his discretion in fixing alimony for the wife and children.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.