On November 24, 1971, a divorce decree in the above entitled case was entered which incorporated a stipulation of the parties awarding to defendant the custody of their minor child, alimony, and monthly child support until such time as the minor became 21, married, self-supporting, or entered the armed forces, whichever occurred first.
*501The minor child of the parties turned 18 on May 27, 1973, and prior to that date, in April 1973, plaintiff stopped paying alimony and child support. In November 1973, defendant moved the district court for an order finding plaintiff in contempt of court for his continuing failure to pay alimony and child support. Plaintiff moved the court to amend the original support decree to reflect the emancipation of the child due to the “age of majority” act, L. 1973, c. 725, which went into effect June 1, 1973, contending that this statutory change ended his obligation to support the child. The district court denied plaintiff’s motion and on November 16, 1973, found him in contempt of court. This appeal followed an order entered March 6, 1974, denying plaintiff’s motion for a rehearing. Further proceedings have not elicited any payment from plaintiff, and on June 3, 1974, plaintiff was sentenced to 45 days in the county workhouse, with a 12-month stay to allow him to purge his contempt. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Plaintiff raises two issues, contending: (1) that the award of alimony to a wife pursuant to Minn. St. 518.45 is unconstitutional in that it discriminates against men based solely on their sex; and (2) that the statutory change in the age of majority applies retroactively to cancel his support obligation and that he cannot be found in contempt for disobeying the original decree in the light of this statutory change.
At the outset, we must state that plaintiff has failed to give proper notification to the office of the attorney general regarding his intent to challenge the constitutionality of a statute. This is a violation of Rule 144, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. Plaintiff presents this constitutional argument for the first time in his brief on this appeal. Where an issue of constitutionality is not raised and acted upon in the court below, a party will not be heard to raise the issue for the first time on appeal to the supreme court. Automotive Merchandise, Inc. v. Smith, 297 Minn. 475, 212 N. W. 2d 678 (1973); Ukkonen v. City of Minneapolis, 280 Minn. 494, 500, 160 N. W. 2d 249, 253 (1968).
*502We hold in Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488, 229 N. W. 2d 131 (1975), filed herewith, that L. 1973, c. 725, § 74, lowering the age of majority from 21 to 18, did not apply retroactively to invalidate rights established by judgments entered prior to the effective date of the statutory amendment, June 1, 1973,1 and that there is no compelling reason for a contrary result. However, we decline to extend that reasoning to the use of the extreme remedy of contempt to enforce such decrees as to adult children.
The Minnesota Supreme Court and the district courts of our state were established by Minn. Const, art. 6, § 1, and are therefore constitutional courts. The power of a constitutionally created court to punish for contempt is an inherent power of the court. State ex rel. Russell v. Ives, 60 Minn. 478, 62 N. W. 831 (1895); In re Contempt of Cary, 165 Minn. 203, 206 N. W. 402 (1925); State v. Binder, 190 Minn. 305, 251 N. W. 665 (1933).
In considering the exercise of contempt power by the court, we have said that the court’s power is arbitrary, born of necessity, and must be exercised with great prudence. In re Jenison Contempt Proceedings, 265 Minn. 96, 120 N. W. 2d 515, remanded, 375 U. S. 14, 84 S. Ct. 63, 11 L. ed. 39, reversed, 267 Minn. 136, 125 N. W. 2d 588 (1963). The need for caution is no less apparent under the facts of this case.
We perceive no interest of the state in this matter. The state by legislative enactment has evidenced an interest in support of minor children, incapacitated children irrespective of their age, and alimony payments for a spouse. However, by legislative enactment, the state has declared that children after their 18th birthday are adults and are not entitled to support from their parents. The courts should respect this expression of state policy and not invoke the extreme sanctions of contempt to enforce provisions of judgments contrary to this policy.
*503We have previously held that contempt proceedings are not available to enforce payments of accrued child support after the child reaches majority. In Lieder v. Straub, 230 Minn. 460, 463, 42 N. W. 2d 11, 13 (1950), Mr. Chief Justice Loring stated the reason for this rule:
“* * * The purpose of our statute (§ 518.17) and its enforcement by contempt proceedings is to insure support for the children during their minority. When they reach majority, the purpose and justification for the extraordinary remedy has expired. Hence, we are of the opinion that the legislature did not authorize the court to enforce its orders for support money for the children by extraordinary remedies after the childen reached majority. The right to a judgment enforceable by ordinary remedies alone remained.” (Italics supplied.)
See, also, Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190, 121 N. W. 2d 77 (1963); Annotation, 32 A. L. R. 3d 888.
Our decision in Brugger v. Brugger, supra, does not alter the basic philosophy of the Lieder case. By legislative act, the age of majority is reduced to 18. We have upheld the validity of decrees entered prior to the reduction of the age of majority. However, the policy of this state at the time of these contempt proceedings, as evidenced by its legislative enactment, demonstrates no state interest in support of children when they have reached the age of 18. This, of course, does not alter the validity of the judgment as between the parties. As we said in Lieder, the judgment is enforceable by ordinary remedies such as levy, attachment, garnishment, and other proceedings available to judgment creditors under the laws of this state.
Moreover, as we said in Lieder, the purpose and justification for the extraordinary remedy has expired. To allow contempt proceedings in this situation would be to abandon our previously announced declaration with respect to the caution to be used in the exercise of this extreme power.
In Dawson v. Dawson, 71 Wash. 2d 66, 426 P. 2d 614, 32 *504A. L. R. 885 (1967), the court, in considering the issue of contempt proceedings after the child reached majority, cited with approval our decisions in Lieder v. Straub, supra, and Zieman v. Zieman, supra. The court quoted with approval the following language appearing in the trial court’s memorandum, which we find most appropriate (71 Wash. 2d 68, 426 P. 2d 616, 32 A. L. R. 3d 887):
“Because the cases following the majority rule are the better reasoned, and because the custodian of the children does not lose her right to collect arrearage in support by garnishment, attachment or execution, and finally because the extraordinary remedy of civil contempt should not be extended needlessly, the majority rule will be followed in the case at bar as being the most reasonable construction of our statute. Contempt proceedings do not properly lie in this case.”
As indicated previously, the validity of the judgment as between the parties is not questioned and the only issue is the method of enforcement of the judgment. We hold that our decision in Lieder is controlling and reverse that part of the order adjudging plaintiff in contempt for failure to pay support money to his child after she reached the age of 18 and also for failure to pay support accrued prior to her reaching the age of 18. We remand the matter to the lower court to reconsider its order for contempt as it relates to alimony.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
In Yaeger v. Yaeger, 303 Minn. 497, 229 N. W. 2d 137 (1975), we reached the same holding for support decrees incorporating stipulations of the parties.