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 she is practicing as an advocate and earning”

The Court also observed “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”.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the husband.