Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/goods-and-service-tax/wife-seek-husbands-itr-details-maintenance-claim-delhi-hc.html?utm_source=follow.it
Wife Cannot Seek Disclosure Of Her Husband’s Income Tax Returns For Maintenance Claim As It Is Personal Information: Delhi HC
It is absolutely most imperative to note that while ruling on a very significant legal point over which even those in legal circles carry a different opinion from one another, the Delhi High Court while putting all such differences of opinion at rest in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Kapil Agarwal vs CPIO Income Tax Officer in W.P.(C) 8481/2021 & CM APPL. 26235/2021 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:DHC:3705 that was pronounced finally on 28.04.2026 has minced absolutely just no words to make it indubitably clear that wife cannot seek disclosure of her husband’s income tax returns from authorities by filing an application for maintenance claim under the Right to Information (RTI) Act as it is personal information. It was held by the Court that a spouse’s income tax details constitute “personal information” and are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. We thus see that the Delhi High Court set aside an order by the Central Information Commission (CIC) dated July 22, 2021 that directed the income tax authorities to reveal his details of his next taxable income for financial years 2007-2008 and onwards on an RTI application by his estranged wife amid an ongoing matrimonial dispute. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced oral judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 about the relief sought that, “The instant petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) An order to set aside Impugned Order dated 22.07.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Central Information Commission 111 second appeal bearing No. CIC/CCAKP/A/20 I 9/657945 titled as “Sakshi Goyal Vs CPIO”.
(ii) Direct the Respondent No. 1 not to share the income details of the Petitioner with the Respondent No.2.”
(iii) Pass any other order/ directions as deem fit and proper to the facts and circumstance of the case in hand and in the interest of justice.””
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, “The contesting parties in the instant petition are husband and wife. The instant petition has been filed by the husband, who is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.07.2021, passed by the Central Information Commission (hereinafter, “CIC”), whereby, directions have been issued for the disclosure of details of his net taxable income for the FY 2007-08 and onwards.”
As we see, the Bench then observes in para 3 that, “It appears that the impugned order was passed in the backdrop of an ongoing matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 seems to have filed a maintenance claim against the petitioner, which has been remitted to the learned Principal Judge by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 179/2024.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 4 that, “The petitioner submits that the information directed to be disclosed is his personal information and as such, is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter, “RTI Act”). He further submits that the impugned order is an unwarranted invasion of his privacy.”
On the other hand, the Bench points out in para 5 that, “Per contra, Respondent No. 2 submits that she has a direct and legitimate interest in knowing the petitioner’s income details in order to get the appropriate relief in the maintenance claim filed by her.”
For the uninitiated, it would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 6 noting that, “At the outset, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is extracted below:
“8(1)(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.””
Most significantly and so also most rationally, the Bench encapsulates in para 7 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “A bare perusal of Section 8 (1)(j) indicates that the general rule is that personal information is ordinarily exempted from disclosure if it is unrelated to public interest or if it would cause unnecessary violation of an individual’s privacy. The only exception to the said rule stipulated under the provision is where the disclosure of such personal information is warranted in larger public interest.”
Equally significant is that the Bench while citing the relevant case law propounds in para 8 holding explicitly that, “In the instant petition, there can be no doubt that the information sought by Respondent No. 2 is “personal information” of the petitioner. The Supreme Court, in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. SLP(C) No. 27734/2012, has held that income tax returns of an individual would fall under personal information, and as such, would be exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench deemed it fit to expound in para 9 holding explicitly that, “As far as the exception of “larger public interest” is concerned, it is observed that the same has to be interpreted in consonance with the scheme and object of the RTI Act. The Act was enacted to promote transparency in the working of public authorities. It could not have been the intention of the legislature to allow disclosure of personal information of individuals, having no bearing on the public at large. Therefore, the concept of “larger public interest” cannot be interpreted in a way that allows misuse of the provisions of the Act.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 10 that, “Therefore, the Court finds that the information directed to be disclosed by way of the impugned order, does not fall under the exception of “larger public interest”.”
It is also worth noting that the Bench while citing the relevant Apex Court ruling then notes in para 11 that, “The contention of Respondent No. 2 that the disclosure of the petitioner’s income details under the RTI Act is necessary for the proper adjudication of her maintenance claim, cannot be accepted. As per the judgement of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha &Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 324., both the parties in a maintenance claim are required to file affidavits of their income, assets, and liabilities, in order to enable proper adjudication of such claim. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:
“(iv) The party claiming maintenance either as a spouse, or as a partner in a civil union, live-in relationship, common law marriage, should be required to file a concise application for interim maintenance with limited pleadings, alongwith an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the concerned court, as a mandatory requirement.
(v) On the basis of the pleadings filed by both parties and the Affidavits of Disclosure, the Court would be in a position to make an objective assessment of the approximate amount to be awarded towards maintenance at the interim stage.””
It would be worthwhile to note that the Bench then notes in para 12 that, “Therefore, it is found that Respondent No. 2 is not without remedy. The parties shall be at liberty to take all remedies available in law for requiring the other spouse to place on record the affidavit as mandated under Rajnesh (supra).”
As a corollary, we see that the Bench then directs and holds in para 13 that, “In the above circumstances, the nature of the directions passed by the CIC are found unsustainable in law. The impugned order, thus, stands set aside.”
Finally and resultantly, we see that the Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 14 that, “With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition along with pending application stands disposed of.”
All said and done, it merits just no reiteration that the bottom-line of this notable judgment by the Delhi High Court is that a man’s net taxable income details cannot be disclosed to his estranged wife under the RTI Act, holding clearly that income tax returns are personal information exempt from disclosure. It must be borne in mind that this leading case stemmed from an ongoing matrimonial dispute of husband with the wife who was seeking maintenance from him and vehemently contending that she had a legitimate interest in knowing her husband’s income details to pursue her claim. But her contentions were not accepted by the Delhi High Court and we have dwelt quite in detail on why her contentions were not accepted as valid as has been discussed and elaborated hereinabove! No denying or disputing it!
aniltikotekar4sme.com 