ALIMONY. The allowance which a hus band by order of court pays to his wife, liv ing separate from him, for her maintenance. 2 Bish. Marr. & D. 351; Chase v. Chase, 55 Me. 21; Odom v. Odom, 36 Ga. 286, It is also commonly used as equally ap plicable to all allowances, whether annual or in gross, made to a wife upon a decree of divorce. Burrows v. Purple, 107 Mass. 432 Parsons v. Parsons, 9 N. H. 309, 32 Am. Dec. 362 ; Buckminster v. Buckminster, 38 Vt. 248. 88 Am. Dec. 652 ; Hedrick v. Hedrick, 28 Ind. 291.
Alimony pendente lite is that ordered dur ing the pendency of a suit in divorce.
Permanent alimony is that ordered for the use of the wife after the termination of the suit for divorce during their joint lives.
To entitle' a wife to permanent alimony, the following conditions must be complied with: First, a legal and valid marriage must be proved; 1 Rob. Heel. 484; Purcell v. Pur cell, 4 Hen. & M. (Va.) 507; McGee v. McGee, 10 Ga. 477; 5 Sess. Cas. N. S. Sc. 1288; Bowman v. Bowman, .24 Ill. App. 165. It will not be allowed where the marriage is de nied ; Hite v. Hite, 124 Cal. 389, 57 Pac. 227, 45 L. R. A. 793, 71 Am. St. Rep. 82 ; McKen na v. McKenna, 70 Ill. App. 340 ; Vreeland v. Vreeland, 18 N. J. Eq. 43 ; Collins v. Col lins, 71 N. Y: 269 ; but see Schonwald v. Schonwald, 62 N. C. 219. But it has been held that where there had been a marriage which was void because the woman had another husband, alimony would be allowed ; Cray v. Cray, 32 N. J. Eq. 25. So where there had been marriage ceremony, but its legality was questioned ; Reifschneider v. Reif schneider, 241 III. 92, 89 N. E. 255. In Brink ley v. Brinkley, 50 N. Y. 184, 10 Am. Rep. 460, it was held that where the marriage is denied, the court will pass upon the ques tion for the purpose of an application for alimony, and grant it if there is a fair pre sumption of marriage.
Beeond, by the common law the relation of husband and wife must continue to subsist ; for which reason no alimony could be award ed upon a divorce a vinculo matrimowii, or a sentence of nullity; 1 Lee, Eccl. 621; Fisch
li v. Fischli, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 360, 12 Am. Dec. 251; Davol v. Davol, 13 Mass. 264 ; Jones v. Jones, 18 Me. 308, 36 Am. Dec. 723 ; Holmes v. Holmes, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 295; Crane v. Meginnis, 1 Gill & J. (Md.) 463, 19 Am. Dec. 237; Richardson v. Wilson, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) 67. This rule, however, has been very generally changed by statute in this country ; 2 Bish. M. & D. § 376.
Third, the wife must be separated from the bed and board of her husband (or by divorce a vinculo inatrionowli) by judi cial decree ; voluntary separation, for what ever cause, is insufficient. And, as a general rule, the alimony must be awarded by the same decree which grants the separation, or at least in the same suit, it not being gen erally competent to maintain a subsequent and independent suit for that purpose ; Law son v. Shotwell, 27 Miss. 630 ; Bankston v. Bankston, id. 692 ; Lyon v. Lyon, 21 Conn. 185 ; Fischli v. Fischli, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 360, 12 Am. Dec. 251; Richardson v. Wilson, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) 67. The right to alimony need not be determined in the suit for divorce, if such right is reserved in the judgment ; Ga lusha v. Galusha, 138 N. Y. 272, 33 N. E. 1062.
Fourth, the wife must not be the guilty party; Palmer v. Palmer, 1 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 276 ; Dailey v. Dailey, Wright (Ohio) 514 ; Pence v. Pence, 6 B. Monr. (Ky.) 496 ; Lovett v. Lovett, 11 Ala. 763 ; Sheafe v. Sheafe, 24 N. H. 564; Hickling v. Hickling, 40 III. App. 73 ; Spaulding v. Spaulding, 133 Ind. 122, 32 N. E. 224, 36 Am. St. Rep. 534 ; but in some states there are statutes in terms which per mit the court, in its discretion, to decree ali mony to the guilty wife ; 2 Bish. M. & D. 378 ; [1892] Prob. Div. 1; and continued adultery of wife after divorce, is no ground for vacating a previous order allowing her permanent alimony; Cole v. Cole, 35 111. App. 544; Brooks v. Brooks, 18 W. N. C. (Pa.) 115.