Top
News Updates

Qualification & Registration As Advocate Does Not Ipso Facto Imply That The Person Practices As An Advocate: Delhi High Court [Read Judgment]

Live Law News Network
9 April 2019 5:42 AM GMT
Qualification & Registration As Advocate Does Not Ipso Facto Imply That The Person Practices As An Advocate: Delhi High Court [Read Judgment]
x
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Delhi High Court recently observed that the mere fact that a person is qualified and registered as an advocate does not ipso facto imply that the person is practicing as an advocate and is earning.

Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva noted, "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."

The court was hearing a revision petition filed by a husband, challenging an order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month to the wife. He had now claimed that the wife had wrongly submitted that she was not working. To bolster his claim, he had asserted that she was registered as an advocate with the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council.

The court, however, opined that the question whether the wife was employed or not would be tested at trial. It further noted that the couple had resided at Azamgarh for a few days and had then moved to Pune, the change in place indicating that she might not be in a position to practice.

"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 court observed.

Taking note of the fact that the petitioner was earning Rs. 60,000 per month, the court opined that the impugned order did not merit any interference. It, however, clarified that it would be open for the petitioner to seek vacation/modification of the impugned order in case he is able to establish that his wife has other sources of income.

Read the Judgment Here


Next Story
Share it