O'KELLEY, District Judge:

The plaintiff has invoked federal jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and its jurisdictional counterpart, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4), requesting injunctive relief restraining the defendants from acting under Ga. Code § 30-204 and §§ 46-101, 46-102, and for a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 2202, declaring the provisions of the Georgia Code unconstitutional. As the constitutionality of state statutes is involved, and the question raised is substantial, a three-judge court has been convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281.

The undisputed facts show that on December 19, 1967, in Halpern v. Halpern, No. B-32847 (Super.Ct. of Fulton Co., Ga., Dec. 19, 1967), a final judgment and decree of divorce was granted between the plaintiff in the pending action, Howard Halpern, and a defendant in this action, Mrs. Ronnie Halpern. Incorporated within this divorce decree was a settlement agreement wherein, among other provisions, Howard Halpern agreed to pay Mrs. Halpern $425 per week as alimony and support of their two minor children. The "Final Judgment and Decree" of the Superior Court recites that the settlement agreement is part of the final judgment of the court.

Plaintiff in this action failed to make alimony payments to Mrs. Halpern as they came due, and, on January 3, 1974, Mrs. Halpern's counsel filed an affidavit executed by defendant in the Fulton County Superior Court for the purpose of obtaining a fi. fa. pursuant to Ga. Code § 30-204 for past due alimony and child support in the amount of $15,300. On the basis of Mrs. Halpern's affidavit, defendant Price, in her capacity as Clerk of the Superior Court, issued a fi. fa. in the amount of $15,300.

On January 10, 1974, counsel for Mrs. Halpern caused a garnishment proceeding to be instituted against plaintiff, Howard Halpern, in the Civil Court of Fulton County, pursuant to Ga. Code § 46-101, to collect amounts due under the December 19, 1967, divorce judgment. The garnishment sought to attach plaintiff's wages owed to him by his employer, Frank Scroggins, receiver for American Food Purveyors, Inc. A successor garnishment proceeding was instituted on February 14, 1974, seeking to attach additional wages then due plaintiff.

On February 26, 1974, plaintiff filed a complaint in this court attacking Ga. Code § 30-204 and §§ 46-101, 46-102 as being unconstitutional in that these provisions provide for the deprivation of property without due process of law. Plaintiff also sought a temporary restraining order against defendant Austin, Clerk of the Civil Court of Fulton County, and defendant Price, Clerk of the Superior Court of Fulton County, to restrain enforcement of the garnishment. This motion was denied, and the present three-judge court was convened.

The basis of plaintiff's claim is that the judgment for alimony used as a predicate for a garnishment action is entirely different from the ordinary judgment upon which execution may lie. Unlike the ordinary judgment, the 1967 divorce decree does not entitle Mrs. Halpern to an unconditional sum certain. Rather, both parties have rights and duties under the decree which may result in the termination of alimony payments. Under the garnishment procedure provided for in Ga. Code § 30-204 and § 46-101 et seq., plaintiff does not have the opportunity to assert any defense to an arrearage in alimony payments except through the posting of a bond and then only after his wages are garnisheed. Such a procedure, it is argued, is analogous to a pre-judgment garnishment, which has been determined to be unconstitutional under Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View, 395 U.S. 337, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969).

The question presented with respect to plaintiff's constitutional claim is whether procedural due process, in the context of the facts presented, requires an opportunity for a hearing before the state authorized garnishment of wages based upon a prior judgment establishing the applicant's entitlement to alimony. We have concluded that this question must be answered adversely to the plaintiff.

Ga. Code § 46-102 outlines the procedure which a judgment creditor follows in order to have garnishment process issue. The requisite procedure includes the filing of a bond and sworn affidavit as to the amount due under the judgment. After service upon the garnishee, a dissolution bond may be filed by the judgment debtor. The filing of this bond dissolves the garnishment, and the judgment creditor's remedy is on the bond. The giving of the bond also changes the parties by changing the issue from one between the judgment creditor and garnishee to one between the judgment debtor and judgment creditor. Rainey v. Eatonton Co-operative Creamery Co., 69 Ga. App. 547, 26 S.E.2d 297 (1943). At this time any defense which the judgment debtor may have to avoid payment on the judgment may be judicially determined.

In examining this statutory procedure, recent Supreme Court decisions mandate that consideration be given to Georgia's interest in effective regulation of the collection of alimony and support through use of the judicial process. cf. Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 1895, 40 L.Ed.2d 406 (1974). The ambulatory nature of a Georgia alimony judgment is a recognition that support is not the duty of a debtor arising in a commercial transaction but, rather, is a continuous obligation providing for the welfare of a former wife and children. Likewise, by the terms of the alimony decree in question, it was fully adjudicated that Mr. Halpern is liable to make alimony payments in installments. By the nature of the judgment he was notified that the installments may be collected by garnishment unless he takes the initiative of showing that new conditions have arisen justifying a change in terms. This merely reflects the state policy requiring the husband to affirmatively show that a duty created by a valid decree has ended. Any other result, requiring additional notice and hearing before garnishment, will result in shifting the burden to the wife which the original divorce decree places upon the husband.

Notwithstanding the state's interest in the collection of alimony judgments, plaintiff urges that under the rationale of Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View, 395 U.S. 337, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969), this procedure is unconstitutional. In Sniadach, pursuant to a Wisconsin statute, the clerk of the court issued a summons at the request of a creditor, who, by serving the garnishee employer, froze the debtor's wages. The creditor was then allowed ten days after garnishment in which to serve a summons and complaint upon the debtor. The frozen wages would be released to the debtor if trial on the main suit were held and the debtor won on the merits. On these facts the question was whether the interim freezing, without the prior opportunity to be heard, was a taking of property without due process of law. The Supreme Court held that it was such a taking. In reaching its decision, the Court, while noting instances where vital creditor or state interests justify summary procedures without a hearing, emphasized the tremendous hardship pre-judgment garnishment visits upon a wage earner as well as the undue leverage held by creditors. As stated by Justice Douglas in the majority opinion:

A procedural rule that may satisfy due process for attachments in general . . . does not necessarily satisfy procedural due process in every case. . . . We deal here in wages — a specialized type of property presenting distinct problems in our economic system.

Although the exact limits of this specialized property concept has remained clouded, the principal meaning of due process is clear: "Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must be notified." Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 223, 233, 17 L.Ed. 531 (1863). Furthermore, notice and opportunity to be heard "must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965); see also Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). The rationale of these decisions is best explained by Justice Harlan, who, in his concurring opinion in Sniadach, stated:

I think that due process is afforded only by the kinds of `notice' and `hearing' which are aimed at establishing the validity, or at least the probable validity, of the underlying claim against the alleged debtor before he can be deprived of his property or its unrestricted use. I think this is the thrust of the past cases of this Court.

Applying these principles to the instant case, the court finds that the 1967 divorce decree and alimony judgment as a basis for the garnishment establishes "the validity, or at least the probable validity, of the underlying claim against" plaintiff before he was deprived of his property. Id. (emphasis added). Although the judgment can be modified, defenses to its payment may arise, or other contingencies may occur, there is still the prior judicial determination of the existence of the alleged debt where plaintiff obtained a hearing. This would appear to satisfy Endicott-Johnson Corp. v. Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 266 U.S. 285, 45 S.Ct. 61, 69 L.Ed. 288 (1924), often cited for the proposition that due process does not require that notice and opportunity for a hearing be afforded a judgment debtor before garnishment. See also Moya v. DeBaca, 286 F. Supp. 606 (D.N.M. 1968), appeal dismissed per curiam, 395 U.S. 825, 89 S.Ct. 2136, 23 L.Ed.2d 740 (1969). At issue in Endicott was the constitutional validity of a code provision providing for the garnishment, without notice, of the assets of a judgment debtor. It was argued that the statute was in conflict with the fourteenth amendment by not providing for notice and an opportunity for a hearing. The Court held the statute not to be in conflict with the due process clause, noting:

The established rules of our system of jurisprudence do not require that a defendant who has been granted an opportunity to be heard and has had his day in court, should, after a judgment has been rendered against him, have a further notice and hearing before supplemental proceedings are taken to reach his property in satisfaction of the judgment.

For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk is ordered to enter judgment in favor of the defendants denying both injunctive and declaratory relief.