Obviously, it is a social issue. However, in above case, it can not be limited within a boundary of social issue because he holds the post in a constituent body (before his sacking). He is obliged to answer to the people, and not setting a good example to the people. People of Nepal have right to ask where these all money come from? What is his salary? Were his forefathers were so rich? It won't be a big thing if other people do it. Even that, I'm against this notion of economic theory and I strongly despise overspendings during wedding ceremonies. There was the news published during gyane regime. Many houses were burnt in a remote village in Nepal, and asked for help for some lacs (Rs.) from the government. Government officially replied saying lack of funds; at the same time, it release much more funds to the "Pasni" ceremony for the grand son of gyane. Besides that, I've many more reasons against overspending in wedding parties. If it really helps the economy, why the hell was the law made in Nepal saying 'more than 50 people cannot participate'? Why do only these freaking laws are required in south asian countries? Please no more pseudo-intellectualism. Let's talk looking at reality and truth, not some economic theories from the book.