This appeal is brought by Mrs. Moore from the July 23, 1975 judgment of the Fulton Superior Court, which denied the demands for relief contained in her application for contempt citation against her former husband and ruled that he was not in wilful contempt.
We construe all of that paragraph following the word "provided" to state a condition precedent to Mr. Moore's duty to pay college expenses. Self v. Smith, 216 Ga. 151
, 153 (115 SE2d 355
) (1960); Evans v. Piedmont Nat. Bldg. &c. Assn., 117 Ga. 940
, 945 (44 SE 2
) (1903). Mr. Moore's position is that the condition precedent had not been met. The transcript of the contempt hearing shows that the trial court manifested extensive understanding of the communication difficulties being experienced by this family. The test on appeal is whether the court abused its discretion on the basis of the facts before it in ruling Mr. Moore not in wilful contempt. Berman v. Berman, 232 Ga. 342
, 343 (206 SE2d 447
) (1974). We conclude that it did not. Scott v. Scott, 229 Ga. 30 (189 SE2d 72) (1972)
, and Bateman v. Bateman, 224 Ga. 20 (159 SE2d 387) (1968)
, urged by Mrs. Moore, are factually distinguishable.