Golas v. Golas

McWilliams, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This skirmish in the war between men and women is the upshot of a wife’s friendship for another woman. The parties were married in 1951. Their only child is a girl, now 13.

Until their .separation they lived in publicly owned quarters at Friendship International Airport where the appellant (Golas) is the fire ■chief. From time to time during 1963 and 1964 Golas upbraided his wife (the appellee) for being so much in the company of the friend (Mrs. Littleford). These occasions usually ended in a quarrel garnished, at times, with violence. She testified she ■often had cuts and bruises as a result of his beatings.

As he tells it, the cuts and bruises were sustained in his defense against ber assaults upon him and he insists she bruises easily. She would get so mad, he testified, she would put her fist through ■a window. They quarreled for the last time on 9 July 1964 when Golas ordered her to remove Mrs. Littleford’s car from their driveway. She did so but she took the child with her and that night moved in with the Littlefords.

A few months later the wife’s mother (Mrs. Barrett) rented a house near the Little-fords in which she installed her daughter and the child. Mrs. ⁶²³ Barrett had a full-time job which made it difficult for her to care for her invalid husband so she moved him in with the appellee, an arrangement which seems to have suited everyone except Golas. A few weeks after his wife’s departure he filed a bill for a divorce a mensa. Within a month she countered with a cross-bill alleging “acts of cruelty and vicious conduct” and asking for alimony, support, counsel fees, custody of the child, and an order restraining him from making use of funds deposited in a building and loan association.

In the succeeding months Mrs. Barrett tried to effect a reconciliation but she said she “just couldn’t get those two loggerheads together.” Golas extended the olive branch several times but she refused to return on “his terms.” He said the only answer he ever got from her was that she didn’t “know what to tell Judy [Mrs. Littleford]” or that she wanted time to think it over. One night in December 1964 he took the daughter out to dinner. When he brought her home his wife invited him to come into the house. About 5 minutes later Mrs. Littleford came in.

They had words. Mrs. Little-ford broke his nose and chased him out of the house with a broom. He obtained a warrant for her arrest. Later that night the wife telephoned him and offered to “come back home” if he would drop the charges against Mrs. Littleford.

He did so but she did not come home. She wanted “more time to think it over,” he said. In January 1966 Golas filed a supplemental bill asking for a divorce a vinculo alleging desertion. Judge Sachse, before whom the case was tried on 20 April 1966, dismissed the supplemental bill and ordered Golas to pay permanent alimony, support and a counsel fee.

He awarded the custody of the child to- the wife and he ordered Golas to pay to his wife “one-half of the net proceeds received * * * from the sale of real estate owned by them as tenants by the entireties.” Golas has appealed. I. We think it is unnecessary to consider whether Golas has made out a case against his wife. We have been unable to discover in the rather voluminous record the corroboration required by Maryland Rule S75. The dismissal of his supplemental bill was correct. ⁶²⁴ II.

The next assignment of error springs from the well settled' rule that permanent alimony may not be awarded unless the complainant shows grounds