After hearing evidence the trial court found against the former husband's contention that the divorce decree was void and that the former husband was in contempt of court for failure to make the required child support payments. The appeal is from this judgment.

The sole defense to the citation for contempt is that the divorce decree was null and void. If the divorce decree is not subject to the appellant's attack then the judgment holding the former husband in contempt of court was authorized.

"Regardless of what the law may have been prior to the passage of the Civil Practice Act, since the effective date of that statute we hold that in a divorce case, though the parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the court, where the record shows that the parties affirmatively conceded and confirmed the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the person and the subject matter, and the court rendered a divorce decree in the case, neither party can thereafter attack the decree as being void for lack of jurisdiction over the person or the subject matter. After the rendition of the final divorce decree containing an award for alimony in periodic payments, the only way to alter the alimony award is pursuant to our modification statute, Code Ann. 30-220." Johnson v. Johnson, 230 Ga. 204, 206 (196 SE2d 394).

In this case, not only did the parties affirmatively concede and confirm the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the person and the subject matter but, based upon such decree, the record here makes it affirmatively appear that both parties have since, relying upon such decree, remarried.

The judgment of the trial court refusing to declare such divorce decree null and void, and thereafter holding the former husband in contempt of court for failure to pay child support, was not error for any reason enumerated.