After considering the rival arguments, the judge noted that the husband had filed an income and expenditure affidavit, which indicated that he was spending around ₹8.90 lakh per month to maintain his wife and son.
“A perusal of the income and expenditure affidavit shows that the husband was spending ₹8,90,947 per month for the purpose of maintaining the wife and the minor son. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the husband was residing with the wife at the time when the income and expenditure affidavit had been filed. Subsequent to the filing of the income and expenditure affidavit, he shifted out from the said premises. However, the expenditure has not been reduced despite the fact that he has moved out from the premises……It has been submitted he has been paying a sum of ₹4.5 lakhs towards the rent of the serviced apartment. He is also paying a sum of ₹1,30,937 per month towards the payment for the housekeeper and cook’s room rent, and ₹76,744 per month for the payment of the salary of the housekeeper and the cook,” Justice Prasad noted.
The Court, therefore, said that the controversy before it was restricted to whether non-payment of salary for the nanny would amount to contempt or not.
This, the Court said, would be a matter of interpretation of the order of the Family Court.
In this regard, the Court noted that the argument by the husband that the nanny appointed at the time of filing of the income and expenditure affidavit was a medical specialist and had been appointed at a time when the minor son was not in good health. However, that position does not continue as of today, it was pointed out.
In view of the changed circumstance, the Court agreed with the husband’s argument that ₹80,000 for nanny is excessive.
“In wake of the changed circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that a sum of ₹80,000 is highly excessive for a nanny who has been employed to take care of a child,” the judge held.
The husband, further highlighted the fact that he had paid ₹24 lakh to the wife that would cover her expenses till January 2022.
In view of the facts set out, the Court held that there was no wilful disobedience on the husband’s part in fulfilling the directions given to him by the Family Court.
Source: Barandbench
