lacked jurisdiction to award what the plaintiff insists on calling 'alimony' in the judgment annulling the marriage. The Court did not in that proceeding award alimony. The judgment clearly specifies that the $ 75.00 a month is for maintenance of the children, and there is no basis whatsoever for characterizing this award as 'alimony.#
A Court of equitable jurisdiction has authority to protect the interests of minor children. The care, custody and maintenance of minor children may be protected by the Court, irrespective of considerations affecting the status of father and mother, and constitutes a paramount interest of the state. See Emrich v. McNeil, 1942, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 307, 126 F.2d 841, 146 A.L.R. 1146; Wedderburn v. Wedderburn, 1917, 46 App.D.C. 149; Slack v. Perrine, 1896, 9 App.D.C. 128.
The Court, therefore, grants judgment for arrearage in the sum of $ 322.50.
The Court could predicate its decision in this cause on another basis. Under the decision of Moran v. Moran, 1947, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 107, 160 F.2d 925, plaintiff has waived any right he may have had to object to the award of maintenance for the minor children entered on May 17, 1950. He, therefore, has no standing at this time to question the validity of that judgment.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.