Whether registration of a person as Advocate does not mean that he is practising and earning?

 As per learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent was
registered with Uttar Pradesh Bar Council. As per the case of the
petitioner, respondent along with her husband resided for few days at
District Azamgarh and thereafter at Pune wherefrom she separated.
The fact that the respondent had been shifting her place of residence
would prima facie show that she might not be in a position to practice
as an advocate. No material has been placed on record by the
petitioner to show that she is working as an advocate. In any
eventuality, petitioner has been given an opportunity to establish his
defence at trial.
The mere fact that the
respondent is qualified and registered as an advocate does not ipso
facto imply that she is practicing as an advocate and earning.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Judgment delivered on: 03.04.2019

 CRL.REV.P. 389/2019

ASHOK KUMAR PASI  Vs STATE 

CORAM:
 MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA



Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.REV.P. 389/2019
1. The petitioner impugns order dated 28.02.2019, whereby, interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month has been granted to the respondent.
2. Petitioner has been working as a Manager in Canara Bank and

admittedly has a monthly income of Rs.60,000/-.
3. Respondent, in the petition, filed before the Trial Court, has
contended that though she is registered as an advocate, she is not
practicing and is preparing for judiciary examination. She has
contended that she has a monthly expenditure of Rs.50,000/-, which
is being borne by her father and brother.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is
duly qualified and has incorrectly stated that she is not working. He
submits that she was registered as an advocate even prior to the
marriage with the petitioner and has been practicing thereafter. He
further submits that income of the father and brother taken together is
about Rs.21,000/-, so her affidavit that she is spending Rs.50,000/- per
month is not believable rather would go on to show that she is
maintaining herself by earning herself.
5. The present impugned order is only an order fixing interim
maintenance. Whether the respondent is employed or not or has other
source of income or not will be tested at trial. The mere fact that the
respondent is qualified and registered as an advocate does not ipso
facto imply that she is practicing as an advocate and earning.
6. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent was
registered with Uttar Pradesh Bar Council. As per the case of the
petitioner, respondent along with her husband resided for few days at
District Azamgarh and thereafter at Pune wherefrom she separated.
The fact that the respondent had been shifting her place of residence
would prima facie show that she might not be in a position to practice
as an advocate. No material has been placed on record by the
petitioner to show that she is working as an advocate. In any
eventuality, petitioner has been given an opportunity to establish his
defence at trial.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner’s monthly income is Rs.60,000/- and
the interim maintenance awarded is Rs.15,000/- per month. In that
view of the matter, the impugned order does not warrant any
interference.
8. The Petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. It would be open to the petitioner to seek vacation/modification
of the order of interim maintenance in case petitioner is able to
establish that the respondent has other sources of income.
10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
APRIL 3, 2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

Print Page