¶1Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, CERCONE, and PACKEL, JJ.
¶2Joseph J. Murphy, for appellant.
¶3Arthur R. Littleton, with him Frances Woerner, and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, for appellee.
¶4OPINION PER CURIAM, April 12, 1973:
¶5Order affirmed.
¶6DISSENTING OPINION BY SPAULDING, J.:
¶7I respectfully dissent.
¶8Appellant challenges the constitutionality of the Act of May 2, 1929, P.L. 1237, § 46, as amended, 23 P.S. § 46, which allows for the payment of alimony pendente lite, counsel fees and costs to wives, but not to husbands. *461 I believe the statute to be unconstitutional for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Henderson v. Henderson, 224 Pa. Superior Ct. 182, 303 A. 2d 843 (1973). I would therefore reverse the order of the court below.
¶9HOFFMAN, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.
¶10Opinion
¶11Order affirmed.
¶12Dissenting Opinion by
¶13I respectfully dissent.
¶14Appellant challenges the constitutionality of the Act of May 2,1929, P. L. 1237, §46, as amended, 23 P.S. §46, which allows for the payment of alimony pendente lite, counsel fees and costs to wives, but not to hus*461bands. I believe the statute to be unconstitutional for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Senderson v. Henderson, 224 Pa. Superior Ct. 182, 303 A. 2d 843 (1973). I would therefore reverse the order of the court below.