On a temporary hearing pending an action for divorce, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting temporary alimony and child support to the mother, nor was the amount so granted excessive, nor did the trial judge err in awarding temporary custody of the minor children of the marriage to the mother.

Anne Margaret Hearn brought suit in the Clayton Superior Court against James H. Hearn seeking a divorce, temporary and permanent custody of the parties' two minor children, and temporary and permanent alimony for support of the two children and the mother. The petition alleged: that the plaintiff and the defendant were married in January, 1957; that they separated July 20, 1964; that the plaintiff was forced to leave the defendant because of his cruel treatment of her during the past year; that the defendant nagged, fussed and argued with her constantly, keeping her disturbed and upset and no matter how she tried she could not please him; that on several occasions the defendant cursed and used vile language in her presence and that of their children; that on several occasions the defendant lost his temper and threatened to do her bodily harm; that on many occasions the defendant ridiculed and embarrassed her in the presence of her friends and neighbors; that on several occasions the defendant made threats against her in the presence of her friends and neighbors and this was highly embarrassing to her; that had she continued to live with the defendant she feared for her health and well-being and as a result of the defendant's cruel and inhuman treatment of the plaintiff she became highly nervous, sick and upset; that she did not condone the defendant's cruel treatment of her which was calculated to and did inflict pain and suffering upon the plaintiff and as a result she has been under a doctor's care; that she has been a good and faithful wife; that there are two minor children of the marriage now in the plaintiff's custody and control; that the defendant is healthy and ablebodied, capable of supporting the plaintiff and their two children; that the defendant has made constant threats against her and if not restrained will do her bodily harm; that the defendant's cruel treatment of the plaintiff was wilful and calculated to inflict pain and suffering upon her and did have this effect. The petition set out the property owned by the parties as being $1,000 worth of household and kitchen furniture and two automobiles.

The defendant husband answered denying the material allegations of the petition and for further answer set out: that the plaintiff separated from the defendant without just cause and had done so on other occasions; that the plaintiff associated with other men to the defendant's humiliation and embarrassment; that she would stay out late and come in with the odor of alcohol on her breath; that she either gave no account or false accounts of her whereabouts; that she is strong and healthy and capable of earning $360 per month. The defendant prayed for custody of the children.

The cause came on for hearing on temporary alimony and custody of the children at which the following oral evidence was adduced.

(a) As to the amount of alimony: The monthly expenses of the wife and two children were $385. The wife formerly earned $80 per week as an account clerk but is presently unemployed. The husband earned a base salary of $500 per month and also received overtime or "time and a half for anything over 8 hours and up to a point of 15 hours and then on . . . double time." The husband stated "in the past week I have not had very much overtime . . ." but did not testify as to the amount of overtime he received. He testified his total expenses were $519 per month.

(b) As to cause for the wife's separation: The plaintiff testified that she went regularly to church and Sunday school and "my husband would call me a bitch before we would get to church and that is when I started letting [another couple] take my children to Sunday school . . ." She denied that she abandoned her husband or separated from him without any reason. The husband stated that she left him for 8 weeks and only returned on June 13, 1964, after he filed for divorce. The wife denied that this was a separation, but explained it was only a temporary visit. She testified she had gone to California to visit her mother whom she had not seen for three years. The defendant stated he didn't feel he gave his wife cause to leave him and in answer to the question, "did she or did she not abandon you without just cause," he replied: "Yes."

(c) As to the wife's misconduct: A witness for the defendant testified the wife came in late at night on two occasions in the company of a man. Another witness who testified that one man "tried very hard to touch her at her house" (as related to the witness by the plaintiff; which statement the plaintiff denied); that there were male callers, although the witness couldn't say whether the plaintiff's husband was home. Still another witness testified that the wife came in late at night. One witness for the defendant testified the wife did not come in around daylight and he did not know of her staying out on weekends when her husband was away. He further stated that as far as he knew she was a good mother. A baby sitter testified she normally "sat" for the plaintiff once a week, although "sometimes twice a week." While she "never got that close" she had seen no indication of the plaintiff's drinking.

The wife testified that she attended night school and bowled once a week. She denied that two named men had visited her while she was alone, but admitted that two others had come by while her husband was away on various occasions. She also admitted that she had received some presents from men who were in the office where she previously worked. She explained a gift of a wristwatch by stating she had helped the donor to obtain a lucrative contract.

The trial judge issued an order awarding custody to the mother with visitation rights to the father and decreeing that the husband pay $25 per week to his wife for her own support and $30 per week for the children's support. The order further awarded attorney's fees to the wife and directed that the husband "shall pay all bills now due and payable for which he is legally responsible" including rent for the apartment where they formerly resided.

To this order the defendant excepted on the grounds that it was: "erroneous and contrary to law and says that the order and judgment was erroneous and contrary to law because there was no evidence to support the order and judgment awarding temporary alimony for the support of plaintiff; that the award of temporary alimony was excessive, against the weight of evidence and that the court abused its discretion in awarding custody of the minor children of the parties to the plaintiff; that said order and judgment is contrary to law, contrary to the principles of equity, and contrary to the evidence introduced in said matter."

1. The defendant's principal contention is that there was no evidence to show the wife had any valid cause to separate herself from her husband and thus the trial judge abused his discretion in awarding temporary alimony and child support.

"It has long been the rule that one act of cruelty, not of a violent or serious character, standing alone, is not a sufficient ground for a divorce," (Phinizy v. Phinizy, 154 Ga. 199, 114 SE 185), or "to justify a wife in leaving her husband and living in a state of separation from him." Brown v. Brown, 217 Ga. 671, 673 (124 SE2d 399). While the only oral evidence as to the husband's misconduct was that he would call his wife a vile name when she took their children to church, yet the verified petition contains many other allegations of cruel treatment. On a hearing for temporary alimony the trial judge, having before him the verified petition, had the right to take into consideration the facts as sworn to therein, without the petition being formally introduced in evidence. Moss v. Moss, 196 Ga. 340, 346 (26 SE2d 628), and cases cited; Hicks v. Portwood, 129 Ga. 307, 309 (3) (58 SE 837). Considering the averments of the verified petition in conjunction with the testimony and applying the rule laid down in the Moss case, we find there was sufficient evidence of cruel treatment to justify the wife's separation and hence to sustain the order issued on the interlocutory hearing.

2. The defendant further contends that even if there were evidence to justify the award of some alimony the amount awarded was excessive. While the award may appear to be somewhat exorbitant, when considered in view of the defendant's base salary of $500 per month, yet there is evidence that the defendant received "overtime" in an undisclosed amount. This being true, we can not ascertain whether the award would be so excessive as to warrant our control of the trial judge's discretion. A trial judge's grant of temporary alimony in a divorce case will be disturbed only where it is flagrantly excessive. Swearingen v. Swearingen, 19 Ga. 265, 267; Golden v. Golden, 209 Ga. 915 (76 SE2d 697).

3. The defendant also insists that the court abused its discretion in awarding custody to the plaintiff mother. Although there was evidence tending to show possible misconduct by the mother, the record fails to show such acts on her part as to render her unfit as a matter of law. Since the evidence did not demand affirming for the father, we can not hold that the trial judge abused his discretion in awarding temporary custody of the minor children to the mother. Dyche v. Dyche, 218 Ga. 833 (131 SE2d 104).

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.