concurring:
I join the majority’s decision which allows the appellant, Rosemarie Gordon, the opportunity to proceed under the new Divorce Code. The Divorce Code, Act of April 2, 1980, P.L. 63, Act No. 26, 23 P.S. § 101 et seq. However, I cannot subscribe to the majority’s views (1) that the words “upon application granted” “necessarily impl[y] that the court must exercise some discretion,” at 692, (emphasis added) and (2) that “in most cases, the answer should be easy; for the legislature has stated its objectives, and the philosophy underlying them, with clarity.” Id.
First of all, in this writer’s mind, the words “upon application granted” are susceptible to more than one interpretation: i.e., the motions court is to grant pro forma the application presented by either party without inquiry into the merits, or the court in its discretion can refuse to grant the transfer. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(a). Given this bifurcated interpretation, it cannot be denied that the statute is ambiguous.*5331 See Faivre v. Faivre, 182 Pa.Super. 365, 371, 128 A.2d 139, 143 (1956); City of Philadelphia v. Schaller, 148 Pa.Super. 276, 282, 25 A.2d 406, 409 (1942), cert. denied 317 U.S. 649, 63 S.Ct. 43, 87 L.Ed.2d 522 (1942). Because ambiguity exists in the language in question, guidance is found from accepted rules of statutory construction, to-wit: the occasion and necessity for the statute; the mischief to be remedied; the circumstances under which it was enacted; the object to be attained; the consequences of a particular interpretation; the former law, if any, including other statutes upon the same or similar subjects; the contemporaneous legislative history; and the legislative and administrative interpretations of such statute. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(c)(l-8); see also Commonwealth v. Pa. State Univ., 463 Pa. 606, 345 A.2d 695 (1975); In Re Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp., 263 Pa.Super. 378, 398 A.2d 186 (1979), affirmed 488 Pa. 524, 412 A.2d 1099 (1980); Jewelcor, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 54 Pa.Cmwlth. 387, 421 A.2d 517 (1980); see generally 2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 4502 (3d ed. rev. 1973).
The legislative objectives set forth in the new Code have been adequately covered by the majority; however, according to this writer’s view, an important factor which tips the balance in favor of adopting a pro forma approach is a consideration of the consequences of adopting a different statutory interpretation.
The majority does not adopt either a pro forma approach or a strict discretionary approach. Instead, it adopts an *534intermediate construction of the statute which, on the one hand, “see[s] no problem with the procedure followed in Philadelphia County, where applications for transfer are routinely granted.....,” at 690 ftn. 6, yet, on the other hand, concludes that the “phrase ‘upon application granted’ implies that the application may be denied”, at 693. This writer submits that such vague and conflicting pronouncements offer little guidance to a trial judge whose decision it will be to decide the merits of a transfer application. A review of the facts of the instant case offers some insight into why a discretionary standard will not be, as the majority predicts, so “easy” to apply.
At the trial level, the court below entertained appellant’s application to proceed under the new Divorce Code and denied the petition on the basis that “ ‘[tjhere are no equitable considerations in favor of allowing [appellant] to proceed under the new code.’ ” at 693. Ironically enough, a majority of this Court pays lip service to the principle that “the court to which the application is presented must decide whether to grant or deny the application[,]” at 693 (emphasis added), yet reverses the trial court whose decision it was to “decide whether to grant or deny the application” in the first instance. Id. Indeed, an already protracted court proceeding would be delayed further and the implementation of the new Divorce Code held in abeyance, as appeals invariably would be lodged from the trial court’s ruling, as is the case here. Additionally, a disposition on the question of whether or not to grant a divorce would be postponed by the necessity of review by one or more appellate courts. Moreover, factual hairsplitting over the specific application of the legislative objectives to the facts at hand would occur; consequently, judges in the same courthouse applying these objectives to the same set of facts predictably may reach different results.2
*535Such unfavorable consequences, we have said, are to be considered by a court when a statute is susceptible to more than one interpretation:
“[W]hen a statute is ambiguous in terms or fairly susceptible of two constructions, the injustice, unreasonableness, absurdity, hardship, even the inconvenience which may follow one construction may properly be considered and a construction of which the statute is fairly susceptible may be placed on it that will avoid all such objectionable consequences and advance what must be presumed to be its true object and purpose.” Hooks v. Hooks, 123 Pa.Super. 507, 513, 187 A. 245, 247 (1938).
With a pro forma approach, these objectionable consequences will be avoided.
The majority cannot accept this writer’s view because a pro forma construction “does unnecessary violence to the legislative choice of language.” at 693. What the majority fails to recognize is that its own construction of the statute is belied by the wording of that phrase. If, as the majority suggests, the “phrase ‘upon application granted’ implies that the application may be denied”, at 693 and since the word “granted” is not modified by any other clause, there is no textual support for the majority’s restrictive interpretation that “the range of discretion is extremely narrow, being limited to a consideration of whether granting the application will be consistent with the objections described in section 102 of the Divorce Code.” at 692. (emphasis added). Either the words of the statute imply discretion or they do not.
The majority, even under its own theory, is reading too much into the statute by construing the words of “discretion”, “upon application granted” to mean that the trial *536court’s exercise of discretion is “extremely narrow”. A more balanced and straightforward approach would be to grant pro forma a petition filed by either party to proceed under the new Divorce Code in pending suits, except in those cases in which a final decree has not been entered below prior to the effective date of the new Code.
. This writer agrees with the definition set forth by the Wisconsin Supreme Court when it said:
“[A] statute, or any sentence, clause or word thereof, is ambiguous only when ‘... it is capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in either of two or more senses.’ The test is whether ‘... “well-informed persons” could have become confused.’ 6
... ‘However, when a case comes before this court it is obvious that people disagree as to the meaning to be given to a statute. This is not controlling. The court must determine whether “well-informed persons could have become confused.” ’ ” Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue v. Nagle Hart, Inc., 70 Wis.2d 224, 227-228, 234 N.W.2d 350, 352 (1975). (Emphasis in original) (Footnote omitted) (Citation omitted).
. A brief overview of the cases which, to date, have been appealed to this Court are representative of the different approaches courts of this Commonwealth have used to grapple with the transfer issue. Both petitions were denied in cases emanating from Delaware and Bucks Counties. See Gordon v. Gordon, 293 Pa.Super. 491, 439 A.2d *535683 (1981) (Delaware County); Miller v. Miller, Pa.Super., (1981) (J. 860/81, filed 1981) (Bucks County).
In Allegheny and Montgomery counties, courts granted transfer petitions even though hearings had been held. Conrad v. Conrad, 293 Pa.Super. 558, 439 A.2d 717 (1981). As already stated infra at 704, Philadelphia County has adopted a policy that applications are to be granted pro forma.