Under marital law, a spouse's right to know income details for maintenance claims outweighs privacy concerns in public interest.

O R D E R

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Food Corporation of India, Bankura seeking following information:-

1. “The present Salary per month of my husband Pushpendra Singh presently posted at FCI, FSD Bikna, under Area Office, Bankura as Manager (D).

2. Total earnings since appointment to till now from FCI of my husband Pushpendra Singh.”

2. The CPIO responded on 29-04-2019. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 30-05-2019 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 14-06-2019. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant, Mrs. Monalisa Das did not attend the hearing and also could not be contacted at the scheduled time of hearing despite efforts. Mr. Tapan Kumar Das and Mr. Priyabrata Barua, CPIO(s) participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.

4. The respondent submitted that they had claimed exemption u/ Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 for not disclosing the total earnings of Mr. Pushpendra Singh but they had disclosed his current monthly salary.

Decision:

5. Since the appellant is not present to attend the hearing, this Commission takes note of the documents annexed with the 2 nd appeal wherein she has expressed her displeasure on not providing the information and has also requested for disclosure of at least the gross income of her husband, Mr. Pushpendra Singh so that she could defend her maintenance case effectively.

6. With regard to disclosure of remuneration of the spouse, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide its decision dated 15-05- 2018 in the matter of Smt. Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain and others, W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others, W.A. No. 170/2015 has decided in affirmative with following observations:-

“The controversy involved in the present writ appeal is whether the information sought is exempt under Section 8 (1)(j) of the Act or it is covered by Section 4(1)(b)(x) which obliges the public authorities to display on public domain the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees.

For ready reference, Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the Act reads as under:-

“4. Obligations of public authorities.- (1) Every public authority shall-

(b). publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act.- (i) xxxxxxxxxx (ii) xxxxxxxxxx (iii) xxxxxxxxxx (iv) xxxxxxxxxx (v) xxxxxxxxxx (vi) xxxxxxxxxx (vii) xxxxxxxxxx (viii) xxxxxxxxxx (ix) xxxxxxxxxx (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations.”

The question of consideration is whether such information is exempt Section 8 (1)(j) of the Act, which 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) xxxxxxxxxx (b) xxxxxxxxxx (c) xxxxxxxxxx (d) xxxxxxxxxx (e) xxxxxxxxxx (f) xxxxxxxxxx (g) xxxxxxxxxx (h) xxxxxxxxxx (i) xxxxxxxxxx (j) Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or