While adjudicating a claim of interim maintenance granted in a matrimonial dispute, the Delhi High Court has observed that registration as an advocate does not imply that one is also practising as an Advocate..“The mere fact that the respondent is qualified and registered as an advocate does not ipso facto imply that she is practising as an advocate and earning.”.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was hearing an appeal assailing an order by the trial court, which had fixed interim maintenance of Rs.15,000 per month to be granted to the appellant’s wife..The appellant husband contended that the wife was “duly qualified” and had lied about her employment status. Disputing the averment that the wife was not working and had no source of income, the appellant stated that she was registered as an advocate even prior to the marriage and had been practising thereafter..He further submitted that the collective income of the wife’s father and brother was about Rs.21,000, so her claim that her monthly expenditure was Rs 50,000 was unbelievable, and would rather go on to show that she was earning herself..Refusing to interfere with the quantum of interim maintenance, Justice Sachdeva remarked that whether the wife was employed or has other sources of income would be tested at the trial stage..It was further observed that the fact that the wife had been shifting her place of residence would prima facie show that she might not be in a position to practice as an advocate..The couple resided for a few days at Azamgarh and then moved to Pune, from where she separated..Also, the husband was not able to place any material on record to show that the wife was working as an advocate..The Court thus decreed,.“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.“.Read the Judgment:
While adjudicating a claim of interim maintenance granted in a matrimonial dispute, the Delhi High Court has observed that registration as an advocate does not imply that one is also practising as an Advocate..“The mere fact that the respondent is qualified and registered as an advocate does not ipso facto imply that she is practising as an advocate and earning.”.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was hearing an appeal assailing an order by the trial court, which had fixed interim maintenance of Rs.15,000 per month to be granted to the appellant’s wife..The appellant husband contended that the wife was “duly qualified” and had lied about her employment status. Disputing the averment that the wife was not working and had no source of income, the appellant stated that she was registered as an advocate even prior to the marriage and had been practising thereafter..He further submitted that the collective income of the wife’s father and brother was about Rs.21,000, so her claim that her monthly expenditure was Rs 50,000 was unbelievable, and would rather go on to show that she was earning herself..Refusing to interfere with the quantum of interim maintenance, Justice Sachdeva remarked that whether the wife was employed or has other sources of income would be tested at the trial stage..It was further observed that the fact that the wife had been shifting her place of residence would prima facie show that she might not be in a position to practice as an advocate..The couple resided for a few days at Azamgarh and then moved to Pune, from where she separated..Also, the husband was not able to place any material on record to show that the wife was working as an advocate..The Court thus decreed,.“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.“.Read the Judgment:
