Husband Can Seek 'Generic Income Details' Of Estranged Wife Through RTI To Corroborate Evidence In Maintenance Case: CIC
In a recent ruling, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed a Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to provide a man with the “generic details of the net taxable income/gross income” of his wife for the specified time period as contained in his RTI Application.Information Commissioner Saroj Punhani relied on Rahmat Bano vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax whereby a...
In a recent ruling, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed a Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to provide a man with the “generic details of the net taxable income/gross income” of his wife for the specified time period as contained in his RTI Application.
Information Commissioner Saroj Punhani relied on Rahmat Bano vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax whereby a similar request made by a wife qua her husband was allowed by the CIC. Accordingly, it ordered,
“...applying the same yardsticks in favour of the husbands in pursuance of the Appellant’s plea during the hearing that the information is being requested for corroborating the evidence in a maintenance case pending against him, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide only the “generic details of the net taxable income/gross income” of the Appellant’s wife for the specified time period as contained in the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be sent to the Commission by the CPIO immediately thereafter within 7 days.”
The appellant (husband) had filed a RTI application to obtain income details (Gross Income/Net Income) of his estranged wife. He intended to use this information as evidence in an ongoing maintenance case against him in a court of law. However, the CPIO denied the information citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant, dissatisfied with this decision, filed a First Appeal.
FAA upheld the reply of the CPIO while observing that since the information was related to personal information, the disclosure of that had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
The CIC pointed out that the Delhi High Court in Vijay Prakash vs. Union of India had observed that in private disputes such as the present one between a husband and wife “…The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption (from disclosure) enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed..”
CIC then noted the decision of a coordinate bench of the Commission in the Rahmat Bano case, wherein the disclosure of the gross income was allowed to the estranged wife on the ground of sustenance and livelihood of the family.
CIC further noted the said decision was premised on the judgments of two High Courts i.e in the matter of Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and others (W.A. No. 168/2015) and Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others (W.A. No. 170/2015) by the Madhya Pradesh High Court as well as Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs. Maharashtra SIC and Ors (W.P. No. 1766 of 2016) by the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench).
Both the Courts had emphasized that when evaluating Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act that a partner should have the right to know the other partner's remuneration, and that such an information could no longer be classified as 'strictly personal'.