IMPORTANT POINT
Husband seeking information cannot be said to be a stranger or a third party.

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the direction dated 17.7.2017 issued by respondent No.1, directing the petitioner to submit the details about the salary /PF accumulations of the wife to respondent No.2 herein, who is litigating against his estranged wife.

2. The strenuous submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no public interest is involved in the information sought by the second respondent / husband in relation to the earnings of the wife. Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RI Act) would absolve the petitioner from submitting any information to the said husband. Reliance is placed on the judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Vijay Prakash Vs. Union of India and others [AIR 2010 Delhi 7], especially paragraph Nos. 20 to 23.12.2013.

3. It is strenuously contended that the EPF Account holder under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is the wife of respondent No.2. She is employed in Aditya Birla Minacs World Wide Limited. The details of her PF account have been supplied by the husband including the account number, establishment id and the name of the employee. What is sought is an information regarding the account statement of her PF accumulation.

4. Shri Choudhary strenuously submits that no public interest is involved and the husband cannot seek this information as his case is covered by Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RI Act.

5. Having considered his submissions and having gone through the judgment cited, it needs mention that the husband is litigating against his estranged wife. In the ongoing litigation, with the intention of defending himself before the District Court, the husband moved the petitioner for seeking information as regards the PF accumulations of his wife. By a cryptic order dated 19.5.2016, which does not contain reasons, except that the information sought is not required in public interest under Section 8(1)(e), his application was rejected.

6. The first appellate authority by order dated 15.7.2016, again by a cryptic and unreasoned order, rejected the application of the husband under Section 8(1)(e) claiming that no public interest is involved. By the order dated 17.7.2017, the Central Information Commission has allowed the appeal of the husband and has concluded that the information sought is personal information and it needs to be supplied.

7. Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RI Act reads as under:-

“8. Exemption from disclosure of information.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-

(a) .....................

(b) .....................

(c) .....................

(d) .....................

(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”

8. Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship can be withheld. There is no fiduciary relationship between a husband and his wife. Section 8(1)(e) would therefore, not entitle the petitioner for withholding the information regarding PF accumulation.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed Section 8(1)(j) by contending that there would be no obligation on the petitioner to give any citizen any information which relates to