The Central Information Commission clarified that a husband can seek generic income and TDS details of his wife under the RTI Act. The case strengthens transparency in matrimonial disputes, especially where maintenance and income disclosure are in question.
Husband Can Seek Wife Income Under RTI: In a landmark order that may reshape transparency in matrimonial litigation, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has dealt with the issue of whether a husband can seek limited, generic financial details of his wife under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The case was heard by Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari, with Advocate Anmol Malhotra representing the Appellant.
The matter arose from an RTI application filed by the husband seeking only generic income-related information of his wife. The request was strictly confined to total TDS deducted in her name and the total amount reflected in her Form 26AS for specific assessment years. No salary slips, no employer details, no bank account numbers, no ITR copies, and no source-of-income disclosures were sought.
As recorded in the written submissions placed before the Commission:
“That the Appellant had filed an RTI application seeking only generic income-related information of his wife, specifically the total TDS deducted in her name and the total amount appearing in her Form 26AS, without seeking any personal, sensitive, or intrusive details such as employer identity, bank account numbers, PAN history, income source, or salary structure.”
The Appellant further clarified that the information sought was purely numerical and non-sensitive.
The submissions state:
“That the information sought is purely numerical and non-sensitive, containing only aggregate TDS amounts and total income credited in Form 26AS. Such basic financial figures do not reveal any confidential personal details and therefore do not fall under the scope of ‘invasion of privacy’ as contemplated under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.”
Despite this limited scope, the CPIO denied the information, invoking exemptions under the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority also upheld the denial, stating that the concerned wife had not filed Income Tax Returns for certain years.
However, the written submissions pointed out a critical contradiction:
“That the First Appellate Authority claimed that the wife ‘does not file ITR,’ yet simultaneously the official system clearly shows TDS traces in her name. This contradiction itself establishes that the Department holds the information, and thus the denial of such information is arbitrary and contrary to law.”
During proceedings, it emerged that generic TDS entries were in fact available for certain assessment years, even in the absence of filed ITRs. This distinction is legally important because Form 26AS reflects tax credits reported by deductors and exists independently of whether an individual files a return.
The legal question centered around Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts “personal information” from disclosure if it has no relationship to public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. The Appellant argued that aggregate TDS figures and total income credits are not the kind of intimate personal data contemplated under this exemption.
He also raised the issue of non-compliance with Section 11 of the RTI Act, which mandates third-party notice and an opportunity of representation before denying information on privacy grounds. The submissions clearly stated that no such mandatory procedure was followed.
The Appellant relied on established judicial precedents, including the CIC decision in Yash Malhotra vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (05 October 2023), where disclosure of “generic details of the net taxable income/gross income” was directed in a matrimonial context.
High Court judgments such as Smt. Sunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain (MP High Court) and Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs Maharashtra SIC (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench) have also clarified that salary or income information between spouses, when sought for legitimate legal purposes like maintenance proceedings, does not stand on the same footing as information sought by a stranger.
In the prayer before the Commission, the Appellant specifically requested directions to provide:
“(a) Total TDS deducted in the name of the Appellant’s wife for the relevant financial years; (b) Total amount credited/reflected in Form 26AS for the same period.”
He also sought a declaration that such limited financial information does not attract Section 8(1)(j) and that failure to issue third-party notice under Section 11 was illegal.
This case gains wider relevance in the backdrop of rising matrimonial and maintenance disputes under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and parallel proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
In such cases, courts often rely heavily on financial disclosures. While husbands are routinely directed to produce complete income records, including salary slips, bank statements, and ITRs, disputes frequently arise where the income position of the other spouse becomes contested.
The present case underscores a legal principle: transparency in financial matters within marriage is not a one-way obligation. When maintenance is claimed on the ground of lack of income, the existence of TDS entries and income credits reflected in official government records becomes directly relevant to judicial determination.
The Commission’s approach in this matter reinforces that generic, aggregate financial indicators are different from detailed personal dossiers. Total TDS figures and gross income credits are tax records already held by the State, and disclosure of such limited data between lawfully wedded spouses, particularly in the context of pending legal disputes, cannot automatically be equated with breach of privacy.
For legal practitioners handling family litigation, this development is noteworthy. It strengthens the position that the RTI Act can be used to obtain basic financial verification in matrimonial disputes, subject to statutory safeguards. It also sends a clear message to public authorities that mechanical denial of RTI requests by citing privacy, without examining the nature of information and applicable precedents, may not withstand scrutiny.
Without revealing any private residential details of the parties, the case stands as a reminder that equal application of financial transparency is central to fair adjudication. In a system where maintenance and financial claims can significantly impact personal liberty and livelihood, access to limited, non-intrusive tax data may play a decisive role in ensuring that courts are not deciding cases on incomplete financial narratives.
The order in Abhijeet Singh vs CPIO Income Tax Officer Guna is therefore being seen as a practical milestone in RTI-based financial disclosure within marriage—one that could influence future disputes where income transparency becomes the key to justice.
Explanatory Table: Laws and Sections Involved in the Case
| Law / Provision | Section | What It Says (Simplified Explanation) | Relevance in This Case |
| Right to Information Act, 2005 | Section 6(1) | Allows any citizen to file an RTI application seeking information from a public authority. | Husband filed RTI seeking generic income details. |
| Right to Information Act, 2005 | Section 7(1) | Mandates CPIO to provide or deny information within prescribed time. | CPIO rejected the request. |
| Right to Information Act, 2005 | Section 8(1)(j) | Exempts “personal information” from disclosure if it causes unwarranted invasion of privacy and has no relation to public interest. | CPIO and FAA denied information citing privacy. |
| Right to Information Act, 2005 | Section 8(1)(e) | Exempts information held in fiduciary capacity. | Department claimed fiduciary relationship with taxpayer. |
| Right to Information Act, 2005 | Section 11 | Mandatory third-party consultation before disclosure of third-party information. | Appellant argued no notice was issued to wife, violating Section 11. |
| Right to Information Act, 2005 | Section 20 | Provides for penalty against CPIO for malafide denial of information. | Appellant sought penal action for wrongful denial. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 125 | Provides maintenance to wife, children, and parents if neglected. | Income transparency relevant in maintenance proceedings. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 | Form 26AS (Rule-based tax credit statement) | Reflects tax deducted at source (TDS) and tax credits reported by deductors. | Husband sought only aggregate TDS entries, not ITR copies. |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Maintenance Provisions | Provides monetary relief and maintenance to aggrieved woman. | Financial disclosures often central in such disputes. |
Case Details
- Case Title: Abhijeet Singh vs CPIO Income Tax Officer Guna
- File No.: CIC/CCABH/A/2024/618345
- Appellant: Abhijeet Singh
- Respondent: CPIO, Income Tax Officer, Guna, JTCP Gwalior Range
- Bench / Information Commissioner: Sh. Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
- Counsel for Appellant: Adv. Anmol Malhotra
- Date of Hearing: 29.01.2026
- Date of Decision: 09.02.2026
- Neutral Citation (as reflected below barcode in CIC order): CIC/CCABH/A/2024/618345
- RTI Application Filed On: 13.12.2023
- CPIO Reply: 19.12.2023
- First Appeal Filed On: 13.01.2024
- First Appellate Authority Order: 05.02.2024
- Second Appeal Filed On: 02.05.2024
- Information Sought in RTI:
- Net Taxable Income and Gross Income for specific Assessment Years.
- Total Amount Paid/Credited by various deductors as per Form 26AS / Annual Tax Statement.
Key Takeaways
- Financial transparency in marriage cannot be selective. If one spouse claims maintenance, the other has a legitimate right to verify income through lawful means.
- Generic TDS totals and Form 26AS figures are not intimate personal details; they are tax records maintained by the State and cannot be mechanically denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
- Authorities cannot casually hide behind “privacy” without following mandatory procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act when third-party information is involved.
- The absence of filed ITR does not automatically mean absence of income; TDS traces can exist independently, and that distinction matters in court.
- This order restores balance in matrimonial litigation, where husbands are routinely compelled to disclose every financial detail while often being denied access to basic income indicators of the other side.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.