Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.11.2022 seeking the following information:
"She had filed a false FIR 498A/406/34 against me and family members and also an affidavit in court where she is falsely claiming to be unemployed in a wake to claim a higher amount in maintenance from her husband (me) against PWDVA, 2005 in Metropolitan Magistrate and CRPC 125 Family Court of Karkardooma Court, District-Shahdara, Delhi. Kindly help me with the information with the reference of landmark judgments of CIC provided in the attachments section.
As per my information she is working somewhere. Please find her details below.
Employee Name: Shikha Gupta
DOB: 13/08/1989
Aadhar Number: 7070 2788 2690
PAN: BHFPG9496M
Particular of certified information required-:
1. Generic details of Gross Annual income of the current financial year
2. Generic details of Gross Annual income of the last financial year. Kindly note these details can be readily obtained through CRPC-91 application filed in court. It indicates whatever case laws are applicable and if the information requested is allowed through court then it must also be shared to the applicant through RTI. Please do not modify or change the question while preparing reply to the RTI application.
Kindly help me the required information with reference to the landmark judgments of CIC provided in the attachments section. Here CIC has directed the PIO to give gross income of the appellant's wife. You are requested to abide by the laws and directions of CIC wherein generic details of the gross annual income of wife was shared with the appellant within 15 days.
1. Vinay Satija vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 2 July, 2019, Second Appeal No. :-CIC/CCITC/A/2018/612681-BJ
Mr. Vinay Satija (Appellant)
VERSUS
CPIO, ITO, Ward-5, Office of the Income Tax Officer, Room No. 302, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-2 Panchkula-134112, Haryana
Facts:
"The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding copies of entire IT returns filed with enclosures for the last three Assessment years of his wife Manmeet Satija. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 09.11.2017 denied disclosure of information as per Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The "FAA, vide its order dated 10.01.2018 concurred with the response of the CPIO.
Decision:
"Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and taking into consideration the aforementioned analysis and the judgments of the Higher Courts, the Commission instructs the Respondent to inform the Appellant about the generic details of the gross annual income of his wife held and available with the Public Authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, as agreed."
2. Capt. Sumeet Kumar vs Director General Of Income Tax..... on 30 April,2021, Second Appeal No. : CIC/DGIPU/A/2019/139827
Capt. Sumeet Kumar (Appellant)
VERSUS
CPIO, O/o. the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 14(3), Pune
Decision:
"It is to be noted that the appellant has also sought the 'gross income' of his estranged wife Ms. Shirin Sumeet Kumar for the financial years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in order to defend the said matrimonial case. Therefore, considering the aspect of marital discord between the husband and wife, this Commission is of the opinion that the respondent should consider providing only the limited information i.e. the numerical figure(s) of the 'gross income' of his estranged wife Ms. Shirin Sumeet Kumar, within a period of 15days from the date of receipt of this order."
3. Rohit Singh vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 March 2021, Second Appeal No. CIC/CCABH/Î'/2019/643986
Rohit Singh (Appellant)
VERSUS
CPIO (Respondent), O/o, the Income Tax Officer, Aaykar Bhawan, Bastar, Chhattisgarh
Decision:
"Taking into consideration the aforementioned analysis and the judgments of the Higher Courts, the Commission directs the respondent to inform the appellant about the generic details of the net taxable income/gross income of his wife held and available with the Public Authority for the period as mentioned in the application after ascertaining that the appellant is the legally wedded husband of Ms. Komal Singh on the date of filing of RTI application, within a period of LE working days from the date of receipt of this order."
4. Nishant Mishra vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 2 December, 2020, Second Appeal No. CIC/CCITL/A/2019/111398
Nishant Mishra (Appellant)
VERSUS
CPIO, O/o. The Income Tax (Respondent) Officer, Barabanki.
Decision:
"It is to be noted that the appellant has also sought the 'gross income' of his estranged wife Smt. Parul Shukla for the financial years 2016-2017 & 2017-2018. In order to defend the said maintenance case at Family Court, Barabanki. Therefore, considering the aspect of marital discord between the husband and wife, this Commission is of the opinion that the respondent should consider providing only the limited information i.e. the numerical figure(s) of the 'gross income of his estranged wife Smt. Parul Shukla, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order."
5. Harish Doulat Daryani vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 28 September, 2021, Second Appeal No. CIC/CCITM/A/2019/657833
Mr. Harish Doulat Daryani (Appellant)
VERSUS
The CPIO (Respondent) O/O. The Income Tax Officer, Ward No.-26(2)(6), RTO-26(2)(6) & Room No.-415, 4th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra-(East), Mumbai-400051
Decision:
"In view of the ratio and analysis of the aforesaid judgments, the Commission directs the present CPIO to provide the details of gross salary of Appellant's wife for the said time-period within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of the same shall also be marked to the Commission."
6. Deepak Garg vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 7 June, 2021, Second Appeal No. CIC/CCITC/A/2019/140845
Mr. Deepak Garg (Appellant)
VERSUS
CPIO, O/o. the Income Tax Officer (Respondent) 5, Ambala Cantt
Decision:
"Therefore, in view of the legal position stipulated in the case of Smt. Sunita Jain (Supra), this Commission directs the respondent to disclose the 'gross income' of Ms. Vaibhavi Joshi so that he could defend the matrimonial case effectively considering the aspect of marital discord between the husband and wife. The 'gross income' of Ms. Vaibhavi Joshi should be disclosed to the appellant, within a period of 30 working days from the date of receipt of this order."
Please provide me this information in the event of justice and so that mean of law can be taken care respecting the judgment given by Honorable Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh vs Neha on 4 November, 2020 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 730 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9503 of 2018).
Please provide the reason in case any of the information could not be provided to me. Please provide the first appellate correspondence details."
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.01.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
4. The following were present:-
5. Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Gupta, attended the hearing.
6. Respondent: Mrs. Anita Salaman, ITO/Faridabad, attended the hearing.
7. The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information qua the instant RTI Application. He added that he is the estranged husband of Ms. Shikha Gupta and a maintenance case in the family court is pending adjudication. He further alleged that Ms. Shikha Gupta has given a false affidavit in the court claiming to be unemployed in a wake to claim a higher amount in maintenance from him and that is why he requires this information.
8. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant in the instant RTI Application is seeking third party information, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
9. In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that CIC has dealt with cases bearing the factual matrix of a spouse seeking such information of another spouse in pursuit of a matrimonial dispute and the stance that had been maintained by it so far is that the information sought for in the RTI Application pertains to the personal information of a third party and stands duly exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant has been drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner &Ors., 2012:INSC:445 : (2013) 1 SCC 212 [LQ/SC/2012/886] and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794 [LQ/SC/2013/435] . The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
10. Further, in matters concerning the disputes of a husband and wife, the Commission is guided by a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Vijay Prakash vs. Union of India (W.P. (C) 803/2009) dated 01.07.2009 wherein the Court 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.."
11. Per contra, in the recent past this Commission has met with the continuing reliance placed by a staggering number of applicants on the decision dated 06.11.2020 of a predecessor 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. 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 dated 15.05.2018 by Hon'ble MP High Court as well as Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs. Maharashtra SIC and Ors in W.P. No. 1766 of 2016 dated 22.10.2018 by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench). Thus, while making a reference to the ratio laid down in the Apex Court judgement in the Girish Ramachandra (supra) case it was held as under in the Rahmat Bano case:
"However, making a distinction with the said judgment, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. 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 dated 15.05.2018 had in a matter where the information seeker had sought the salary details of her husband from the employer held as under:
"While dealing with the Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant and the respondent No. 1 are husband and wife and as a wife she is entitled to know what remuneration the respondent No. 1 is getting. Present case is distinguishable from the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) and therefore the law laid down by their Lordships in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) are not applicable in the present case. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No. 341/2008. Similarly, the W.A. No. 170/2015 is also allowed and the impugned order passed in W.P. No. 1647/2008 is set aside."
8. Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in the matter of Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs. Maharashtra SIC and Ors in W.P. No. 1766 of 2016 dated 22.10.2018 held as under:
"8. Perusal of this application shows that the salary slips for the period mentioned in the application have been sought for by the Advocate. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the salary slips contain such details as deductions made from the salary, remittances made to the Bank by way of loan installments, remittances made to the Income Tax Authority towards part payment of the Income Tax for the concerned month and other details relating to contributions made to Provident Fund, etc. It is here that the information contained in the salary slips as having the characteristic of personal nature. Any information which discloses, as for example, remittances made to the Income tax Department towards discharge of tax liability or to the Bank towards discharge of loan liability would constitute the personal information and would encroach upon the privacy of the person. Therefore as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande (supra) such an information could not be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act. This is all the more so when the information seeker is a person who is totally stranger in blood or marital relationship to the person whose information he wants to lay his hands on. It would have been a different matter, had the information been sought by the wife of the petitioner in order to support her contention in a litigation, which she filed against her husband. In a litigation, where the issue involved is of maintenance of wife, the information relating to the salary details no longer remain confined to the category of personal information concerning both husband and wife, which is available with the husband hence accessible by the wife. But in the present case, as stated earlier, the application has not been filed by the wife.
9. Then, by the application filed under the provisions of the RTI Act, information regarding mere gross salary of the petitioner has not been sought and what have been sought are the details if the salary such as amounts relating to gross salary, take home salary and also all the deductions from the gross salary. It is such nature of the information sought which takes the present case towards the category of exempted information.
10. All these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the authority below and, therefore, I find that its order is patently illegal, not sustainable in the eyes of law."
9. Taking into consideration the aforementioned analysis and the judgments of the Higher Courts, the Commission directs the respondent to inform the appellant about the generic details of the net taxable income/gross income of her husband held and available with the Public Authority for the period 2017-2018, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
Emphasis Supplied
10. The details/copy of income tax returns and other personal information of third party need not to be disclosed to the appellant except as mentioned at para no. 9 above."
12. In pursuance of the Appellant's prayer urging that the information is being requested for a maintenance case, applying the same yardstick in such cases, the Commission directs the CPIO, to seek documentary proof from the Appellant regarding pending matrimonial maintenance case with Ms. Shikha Gupta within a period of 05 days from the date of receipt of this order, upon receipt of which, the Respondent is directed to provide the "generic details of the net taxable income and gross income" of Ms. Shikha Gupta, after satisfying herself regarding case for maintenance, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, with a copy uploaded on the link provided in the hearing notice.
13. The Commission further directs the CPIO that no information shall be disclosed to the Appellant which is exempted from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.
14. The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of this order.
15. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
