SONIA GUPTA Vs. AJAY GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.Rev.P. 588/2017 & Crl.M.A.18559/2017 (for interim relief)

(2.) Perusal of the impugned order shows that the sole reason for the rejection of the application given by the Trial Court, is that in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the petitioner claimed to have spent Rs.3,00,000/- per month on various heads and had engaged lawyers of repute, which was possible if the petitioner had corpus to pay them.

(3.) The Trial Court has overlooked the fact that the petitioner had contended before the Trail Court that she could pay the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by borrowing from friends and near and dear relatives. Further, the mere fact that a party engages counsel of repute does not ipso facto imply that the said party has sufficient funds. It is a known fact that counsels may appear for various reasons not limited to payment of fee.