" CAPRERI" v. " CAPRERI"

PANKEN, J.

Sidney H. Rosen for petitioner. John J. Mangini for respondent. PANKEN, J. It is apparent from the testimony submitted in this case on behalf of both sides that there might have been a possibility of a continuous marital relationship between the petitioner and respondent were they living separate and away from the parents of the petitioner. It is apparent from the evidence that the petitioner herein is unduly attached to her parents. It is equally apparent from the evidence in the case that the respondent has resented that, and resented it very strongly. Under the common law, which has been adopted to a degree by our system of law, the wife is obligated to live with her husband in a home which he is obliged to provide. I think that law is good. It would be a little better even were the law founded on the provision that the home of the family should be agreed upon by both husband and wife. Unfortunately, and I use that term advisedly, for eons of time, century upon century, woman has been regarded as the recipient rather than the giver. Because of that she was doomed to occupy a status inferior to that of "his male lordship", and thus has developed the law that the woman must live in the home which her husband provides. If I were to proceed, make this observation because I want it clearly understood that though the woman did work, though she can work, and is physically fit to work, her earnings are not to be at the cost of the child's needs. The primary obligation is that of the father. The father is not only obliged to give the child food, clothing and shelter, he is also obliged to give the child care, supervision and guidance by a fit and adequate person. It is evident he cannot do it because he is employed. Therefore, it follows that the mother is to be provided for by the father so that the child can have maternal supervision, guidance and care. The rental of the apartment occupied by this young woman and her child is $65 a month, or was $65 a month until the father-in-law asked for an increase of $10 a month. There are four people occupying the apartment. I assume that $32.50 a month for this woman and her child would be a fair apportionment of the rental. Differences will arise in so intimate a relationship as marriage. There are bound to be differences. Sometimes those differences break out into violence. But when those differences and that violence are afterwards passed over by both of the parties and the intimate relationship of marriage is re-established, it would seem to me that upon the re-establishment of intimate relations a new life is begun, and everything that went before is wiped out, more or less. It therefore follows than an offer of resumption of marital relations by one and its rejection by the other, would not entitle the rejecting party to support on the basis of means. The rejecting party would only be entitled to support on the basis of need, and I so find. [*] Names used herein are fictitious for the purposes of publication.