Registered advocate is not a practicing advocate
Delhi High Court has observed that the mere fact of registration as an advocate does not mean ipso facto that the person is practicing and earning. Justice Sachdeva passed the judgment tilted as ASHOK KUMAR PASI vs STATE on 03.04.2019. The Ashok Kumar Pasi has impugned order dated 28.02.2019, whereby, interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month has been granted to his wife. Petitioner has been working as a Manager in Canara Bank and admittedly has a monthly income of Rs.60,000/-. Wife 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. High Court observed “ 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 sh...