
    Shirley K. ISTRE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lee ISTRE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 2670.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.
    May 22, 1969.
    Voorhies, Labbe, Fontenot, Leonard & McGIasson, by J. Winston Fontenot, Lafayette, for defendant-appellant.
    Reggie & Harrington, by Edmund M. Reggie, Crowley, for plaintiff-appellee.
    Before TATE, FRUGÉ and SAVOY, JJ.
   SAVOY, Judge.

The sole issue to be determined on this appeal is whether the trial judge abused the discretion vested in him in awarding plaintiff $230.00 per month as child support for two minor children born of the union between plaintiff and defendant.

Plaintiff made an excellent witness and gave a detailed statement of the needs of the minor children. Her testimony reveals that the sum of $400.00 per month is needed for the support of the minor children. She did not ask alimony for herself and testified that her salary as a legal secretary was $385.00 per month.

Counsel for defendant does not quarrel with the sum of $400.00 per month as being the amount needed to support the minor children. His argument in requesting a reduction in the award made by the district judge is that defendant has a take-home pay of $500.00 per month, and that he cannot pay the sum ordered by the trial judge and still support himself.

The record reveals that defendant is employed by an oil company as a scout; that he is furnished with a car and has an unlimited expense account for entertainment purposes. He is reimbursed each month for any out-of-pocket expenses. Defendant rents an apartment for which he pays $160.00 per month rent.

When parents are separated the cost of living is greater than when they are living together. Any legal separation causes a financial hardship on the husband and wife. We feel that the welfare of the minor children is paramount in matters of this nature.

Counsel for defendant admits defendant is able to pay $180.00 per month for the support of the minors. The district judge awarded $230.00. Under the circumstances set forth in the record, we cannot say that he abused his discretion. Much latitude must be left to a trial judge in these matters. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court at appellant’s costs.

Affirmed.  