In the case of Ashok Kumar Pasi v State and Anr, a single judge bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed that,” 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 case was filed by a Bank manager, against the order that granted interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month to the wife. His wife, registered with Uttar Pradesh Bar Council, denies her husband’s claim that she is practicing and reiterates that she is preparing for the Judicial Services Examination. She also contended that her monthly expenditure of Rs. 50,000 is being taken care of by her father and brother. The appellant, who has an income of Rs. 60,000, claims that his wife was registered as an advocate since before their marriage and has been practicing. In addition to this he also contended that the combined income of her father and brother is Rs. 21,000 and therefore, cannot possibly bear the expenditure of the respondent.
The Delhi HC ruled that whether the respondent is employed or has other source of income is a matter to be tested at trial stage. The Court also observed that according to the facts the couple has been constantly shifting places and its difficult to assert that respondent could practice as an advocate. More importantly, the petitioner could not place any reliable evidence on record showing that respondent was working and earning as an advocate. The Court awarded an interim maintenance order of Rs. 15,000 and allowed the petitioner to establish his defence that his wife has other sources of income at Trial.
The Petition was dismissed.