At a hearing before a trial judge in a divorce and alimony case on the question of custody of the minor children of the parties and what amount is to be allowed to the wife as temporary alimony for the support of herself and the children, the trial judge is the sole trior of the facts and is vested with a broad discretion which will not be controlled by this court unless manifestly abused. Smith v. Smith, 125 Ga. 384 ( 53 S.E. 958); Brown v. Brown, 159 Ga. 323 ( 125 S.E. 713); Caswell v. Caswell, 179 Ga. 676 ( 177 S.E. 247); Braswell v. Braswell, 198 Ga. 753 (1) ( 32 S.E.2d 773); Childs v. Childs, 203 Ga. 9 (1) ( 45 S.E.2d 418); Brannen v. Brannen, 208 Ga. 88 (1) ( 65 S.E.2d 161). In this case, the evidence authorized a finding that the husband had a gross annual income in excess of $25,000, and the award of the family home and its furnishings and two of the three automobiles owned by the husband to the wife, for the use of herself and their three children, together with allowances for mortgage payments, insurance and support for the children, totaling slightly less than $800 per month, was not excessive or an abuse of discretion.
These grounds are not meritorious. See Pafford v. Pafford, 186 Ga. 100 (3) ( 196 S.E. 804); Braswell v. Braswell, 198 Ga. 753 ( 32 S.E.2d 773); Jeffrey v. Jeffrey, 206 Ga. 41 (1), supra; Boozer v. Boozer, 207 Ga. 52 ( 60 S.E.2d 150); Robertson v. Robertson, 207 Ga. 686, supra. 9.
" Since the evidence shows that the defendant was able to do some types of work, this court cannot say as a matter of law that the jury's allowance for the support of his children was excessive or that the trial judge abused his discretion in approving the verdict. See Braswell v. Braswell, 198 Ga. 753 ( 32 S.E.2d 773); Burger v. Burger, 196 Ga. 428 ( 26 S.E.2d 615); West v. West, 155 Ga. 366 ( 116 S.E. 540). 3. For no reason assigned is the judgment complained of erroneous.
1. An order granting temporary alimony is always in the breast of the court, and the court is authorized at any time, in the exercise of a sound discretion, to revise or revoke such an order. Code ยง 30-204; Alford v. Alford, 190 Ga. 562 ( 9 S.E.2d 895); Williams v. Williams, 194 Ga. 332 ( 21 S.E.2d 229); Braswell v. Braswell, 198 Ga. 753 ( 32 S.E.2d 773); Williams v. Williams, 206 Ga. 341 ( 57 S.E.2d 190). 2.
1. As defined in our Code, ยง 30-201, "Alimony is an allowance out of the husband's estate, made for the support of the wife when living separate from him. It is either temporary or permanent." The necessities of the wife, when entitled to alimony, and the husband's ability to pay it, are the controlling factors to be considered and followed in making an allowance for alimony, temporary or permanent. Methvin v. Methvin, 15 Ga. 97; Besore v. Besore, 49 Ga. 379; Hawes v. Hawes, 66 Ga. 142; Melvin v. Melvin, 129 Ga. 42, 43 ( 58 S.E. 474); King v. King, 170 Ga. 291 ( 152 S.E.2d 574); Taylor v. Taylor, 189 Ga. 110 (2) ( 5 S.E.2d 374); Braswell v. Braswell, 198 Ga. 753 (2) ( 32 S.E.2d 773). And this court has frequently and consistently refused to put its stamp of approval on awards therefor which were, under the evidence, substantially disproportionate to either. Pinckard v. Pinckard, 23 Ga. 286; Ayers v. Ayers, 99 Ga. 325 ( 25 S.E. 674); Johnson v. Johnson, 131 Ga. 606 (62 1044); Davis v. Davis, 138 Ga. 8 ( 74 S.E. 830); Arnold v. Arnold, 141 Ga. 158 ( 80 S.E. 652); Potter v. Potter, 145 Ga. 60 ( 88 S.E. 546); Lightfoot v. Lightfoot, 149 Ga. 213 ( 99 S.E. 611); Porter v. Porter, 178 Ga. 784 ( 174 S.E. 527); Weatherford v. Weatherford, 204 Ga. 553 ( 50 S.E.2d 323).
1. An award of temporary alimony and attorney's fees lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and will not be disturbed unless such discretion has been flagrantly abused. Smith v. Smith, 125 Ga. 384 ( 53 S.E. 958); Brown v. Brown, 159 Ga. 323 ( 125 S.E. 713); Braswell v. Braswell, 198 Ga. 753 ( 32 S.E.2d 773). 2. "`The order allowing [temporary] alimony shall be subject to revision by the [trial] court at any time.' Code ยง 30-204; Wilkins v. Wilkins, 146 Ga. 382 ( 91 S.E. 415); Henderson v. Henderson, 170 Ga. 457, 460 ( 153 S.E. 182). If, after an allowance for temporary alimony and counsel fees, the husband becomes unable to meet the payments, he is entitled to show this, and the court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for a reduction of the amounts.
Under the evidence adduced at the trial, this court can not say as a matter of law that the allowance of alimony was excessive or an abuse of discretion. See Braswell v. Braswell, 198 Ga. 753 ( 32 S.E.2d 773); Burger v. Burger, 196 Ga. 428 ( 26 S.E.2d 615); West v. West, 155 Ga. 366 ( 116 S.E. 540). Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
His ability to perform labor; his opportunity to find gainful employment; his disposition and will to earn money and contribute a reasonable amount to his family's support, and his diligence in seeking employment that will yield, at the very least, sufficient wages to provide for himself and dependents the necessaries of life should also be considered. See Arnold v. Arnold, 195 Ga. 304, 24 S.E.2d 12; Reese v. Reese, 189 Ga. 314, 5 S.E.2d 777; Huddleston v. Huddleston, 189 Ga. 228, 5 S.E.2d 896; Scruggs v. Scruggs, 184 Ga. 853, 193 S.E. 865; Boyett v. Boyett, 192 Ga. 604, 15 S.E.2d 871; Roper v. Roper, 242 Ky. 658, 47 S.W.2d 517, 519; Braswell v. Braswell, 198 Ga. 753, 32 S.E.2d 773; Burger v. Burger, 196 Ga. 428, 26 S.E.2d 615; Hall v. Hall, 185 Ga. 502, 195 S.E. 731; Shepherd v. Shepherd, 201 Ga. 525, 40 S.E.2d 382; Gaston v. Gaston, 114 Cal. 542, 46 P. 609, 55 Am. St. Rep. 86; Ex parte Spencer, 83 Cal. 460, 23 P. 395, 17 Am. St. Rep. 266; Record v. Record, 195 Okla. 289, 157 P.2d 166; Mathews v. Mathews, 186 Okla. 245, 96 P.2d 1054, 139 A.L.R. 202; Hulcher v. Hulcher, 177 Va. 12, 12 S.E.2d 767; Hawkins v. Hawkins, 187 Va. 595, 47 S.E.2d 436. Inability to comply with an order awarding alimony pendente lite is not established by merely showing that one has no money or property which he might convert into money with which to satisfy the alimony installments. It must be further made to appear clearly that he has in good faith exhausted all the resources at his command and made a diligent and bona fide effort to comply with the order.