This is an appeal from an order of support entered against appellant pursuant to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), Code Ann. Ch. 99-9A. We affirm.
1. Appellant, apparently referring to Code Ann. 30-220 providing for revision of judgments for permanent alimony, asserts that an URESA action cannot be used to revise a foreign alimony decree within two years of a prior revision. However, that section provides that "[n]o petition [for revision] may be filed by either former spouse under this law [Code Ann. 30-220 through 30.225.1] within a period of two years from the date of the filing of a previous petition by the same former spouse." (Emphasis supplied.) While it was held in Lamb v. Lamb, 241 Ga. 545 (246 SE2d 665) (1978)
that a petition for revision could not be brought pursuant to Code Ann. 30-220 et seq., within two years of a prior URESA action which had sought the same relief, the converse does not hold true since 30-220, by its terms, imposes no limitation upon the bringing of subsequent URESA actions.
In any event appellant fails to show by the record any prior revision of the foreign judgment, and "[t]his court can not consider factual representations in the appellant's brief which do not appear on record." Coweta Bonding Co. v. Carter, 230 Ga. 585
, 586 (1) (198 SE2d 281
) (1973). Accord, Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Knight, 143 Ga. App. 668
, 674 (239 SE2d 686
) (1977). Accordingly no reversible error appears.
2. While appellant's motion for new trial was pending our Supreme Court, pursuant to Orr v. Orr, ---- U. S. ---- (99 SC 1102, 59 LE2d 306) (1979), held our alimony statutes unconstitutional because they "impose alimony obligations on husbands but not wives and violate the Equal Protection Clause . . ." Stitt v. Stitt, 243 Ga. 301
(253 SE2d 764
) (1979). Appellant then amended his motion for new trial to make, for the first time, a constitutional attack upon URESA.
That, unfortunately for appellant, was too late. " 'The constitutionality of no law can be drawn in question for the first time in a motion for new trial . . .,' " E. P. v. State of Ga., 230 Ga. 770
, 771 (199 SE2d 313
) (1973), and "[t]he fact that the alimony laws were declared unconstitutional pending his appeal, Orr v. Orr, supra, Stitt v. Stitt, supra, does not require a different result." Kosikowski v. Kosikowski, 243 Ga. 413 (254 SE2d 363) (1979)
; followed in Kirkpatrick v. Woodruff, 243 Ga. 736 (256 SE2d 465) (1979)
W. Bryant Huff, District Attorney, Gerald W. Brown, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.