Paridhi Arya
Published on April 29, 2022 at 16:45 IST
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad had refused to initiate the Civil Contempt of Court proceeding on a husband who denied pay a salary to nanny of his son.
The Petition is filed by wife against estranged husband. According to Order of Family Court, Saket the husband was asked to pay Rs. 4.25 lakh as rent and Rs. 1 lakh each to wife and minor son and 1 lakh rupees for groceries.
The wife pressed the charges under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
The wife submitted before the Court that his husband is not paying Rs. 80,000 salary to a nanny who looks after their son.
In the reply husband submitted that she is a medically trained nanny who was appointed when their son was small and ill now he is fine so there is no need of nanny.
“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 pointed out that only question in the Case is whether Non-payment of salary to nanny amounts Civil Contempt on part of the husband or not.
The Court observed that when income and expenditure affidavit filed there was a need of nanny now the situation and circumstances got changed.
“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 Court held that there is no wilful disobedience on part of the husband in following the order of Family Court.