¶1OPINION
¶2Order affirmed.
¶3concurs in the order of the Court, but believes that the doctrine of spousal immunity is anachronistic and serves no useful purpose. The modern view is to *590eliminate the doctrine. Pennsylvania should join the increasing majority of jurisdictions abrogating it. See DiGirolamo v. Apanavage, 454 Pa. 557, 312 A.2d 382 (1973) (Dissenting Opinion by ROBERTS, J.); Kelso v. Mielcarek, 226 Pa. Superior Ct. 476, 313 A.2d 324 (1973) (Concurring Opinion by HOFFMAN, J.).