Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting from the second decretal paragraph thereof the provision terminating alimony payments within six months from the date of the order; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to the petitioner.
Following a protracted hearing, the Family Court ordered that the husband's obligation to pay alimony in the sum of $100 per week was to terminate within six months of the date of the order appealed from. The record, however, reveals that the husband's cross petition for a downward modification of alimony was predicated upon allegations that the petitioner wife should be required to contribute to the support of the parties' two children. He did not affirmatively seek a complete termination of alimony. It was improper for the Family Court to have ordered a termination of alimony in the absence of a formal application for such relief (see, Derosia v Derosia, 61 A.D.2d 885; Gottlieb v Gottlieb, 50 A.D.2d 921).
In any event, the record does not support a finding of a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a complete termination of the husband's alimony obligation (see, Baia v Baia, 129 A.D.2d 988; Tumolillo v Tumolillo, 71 A.D.2d 625, affd 51 N.Y.2d 790; Sterlace v Sterlace, 52 A.D.2d 743). Eiber, J.P., Kooper, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.