Husband and wife were married in 1988 and separated in 2006. A divorce master held a hearing in this divorce proceeding and found that husband earned about $44,000 in gross income annually. Wife suffered from a variety of mental health issues throughout the marriage. She worked until 2009, when her condition deteriorated. Wife was hospitalized on two occasions in 2010. At the time of the master's hearing, wife was on disability and received benefits of $1,117 per month. Wife also received $586 each month in spousal support. She was treated by a psychiatrist and received counseling and medication to treat anxiety, depression and several physical conditions, including congestive heart failure and diabetes. The master recommended that husband continue to pay wife $585 per month through Sept. 30, 2016. Thereafter, the trial court granted wife's exceptions in part and entered an order requiring husband to continue making alimony payments to wife indefinitely. Husband filed this appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. He claimed the trial court abused its discretion in requiring him to pay wife alimony indefinitely. The appellate court noted that, contrary to husband's assertion, the trial court did not impose a lifetime support obligation. Rather, the court said that the alimony award could be terminated or modified if either party had a notable change in financial circumstances. The divorce master had suggested that wife consider subsidized housing and government benefits for low-income and disabled persons. While this recommendation was intended to assist wife in improving her financial situation, the recommendation was not consistent with the finding that wife was disabled and unable to support herself, and would be for the foreseeable future. The master's recommendation was also inconsistent with the overarching purpose of the Divorce Code to effectuate economic justice between the parties, the court observed. The fact that wife might be eligible for government-subsidized programs did not eliminate husband's support responsibilities. The court looked to Remick v. Remick, 456 A.2d 163 (Pa. Super. en banc 1983), in which it opined that the legislature did not enact the alimony provisions of the Divorce Code with the intent that the financial welfare of a dependent spouse should devolve upon the Commonwealth following divorce. As such, the court found that the indefinite award of alimony in this case was supported by the record. Accordingly, the court affirmed.