The Central Information Commission has ruled that a husband fighting a maintenance case can seek limited income details of his wife through RTI. The order highlights how income opacity can unfairly burden men in matrimonial disputes.
NEW DELHI: In an important decision affecting matrimonial and maintenance disputes, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has clarified that while personal income tax records are generally protected, limited and generic income information of a spouse cannot be completely denied when it is required for fair adjudication of a maintenance case.
The case arose from a second appeal filed by Naveen Manocha against the Public Information Officer (PIO), Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh, under File No. CIC/CCITC/A/2024/623845, decided on 26.12.2025.
The matter began when the appellant filed an RTI application on 27.03.2024 seeking information regarding the income of his wife for multiple assessment years.
The specific request was:
“Pls Provide the generic details of the net taxable income/gross income of My wife Priyanka D/o Atam Parkash Kataria, for the assessment year 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 & 2023-24. Her PAN No: ********0L. Aadhar no. **********949.”
The Income Tax Department rejected this request. In its reply dated 23.04.2024, the PIO stated:
“Your RTI application was received in this office on 12.04.2024. On perusal of your application, it is submitted that it is not clear from the application what public interest will be served from the information sought by you. Furthermore, the information sought by you cannot be provided by this office as this information falls under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
The PIO further relied on the statutory exemption and reproduced the provision: 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.”
Concluding the reply, the department stated:
“Therefore, your application is rejected u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005”.
Aggrieved by this rejection, the appellant filed a first appeal on 03.05.2024, which was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority on 20.05.2024, upholding the stand of the PIO. The appellant then approached the CIC by filing a second appeal on 06.06.2024.
During the hearing held on 24.12.2025, the appellant explained the background of the dispute. He submitted that he was involved in a matrimonial dispute and that a maintenance case was pending before the Family Court, Chandigarh. He pointed out that as a government employee, all his income details were already available with authorities through Form-16 and official records.
He further submitted that his wife was engaged in private business and claimed to be filing income tax returns, but her actual income was not being disclosed before the matrimonial court. According to him, he was not seeking detailed returns but only basic or generic details of her gross or net taxable income to place correct facts before the court.
The respondent department reiterated its earlier stand and denied the information, again invoking section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act on the ground that the information related to a third party. However, during the hearing, it was admitted in response to a query from the Commission that the appellant’s wife had indeed been filing income tax returns with the department.
While examining the matter, the Commission referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission, where it was held:
“The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”
At the same time, the Commission noted that courts have made distinctions in matrimonial contexts. It referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and others, where the court observed:
“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.”
The Commission also relied on the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) judgment in Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs. Maharashtra SIC, which explained the privacy aspect of salary and tax details.
The court noted:
“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.”
However, the same judgment made an important observation relevant to matrimonial disputes:
“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.”
Applying this reasoning, the CIC held that a similar principle must operate in reverse as well, where a husband faces a maintenance claim and seeks limited income details of his wife to ensure a fair decision. The Commission directed the respondent authority to first verify that the appellant is the legally wedded husband and that a maintenance or matrimonial case is pending before the competent court. The appellant was directed to submit relevant documents within one week.
Upon verification, the Commission ordered that the respondent shall provide the “generic details of the net taxable income/gross income” of the estranged wife for the relevant assessment years, free of cost, within three weeks. At the same time, it clearly protected privacy by directing that copies of income tax returns and other personal details of the third party should not be disclosed.
The appeal was accordingly disposed of, with directions to the First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance. The decision subtly underscores a recurring issue in matrimonial litigation, where men are often required to disclose every financial detail, while the other spouse’s income remains opaque, creating an imbalance in maintenance proceedings. By allowing access to limited income information, the CIC has attempted to restore a measure of fairness in such cases, without violating the privacy framework of the RTI Act.
Explanatory Table: Laws, Sections & Judicial References Involved
| Law / Judgment | Section / Case Reference | Explanation & Context in This Case |
| Right to Information Act, 2005 | Section 8(1)(j) | Provides exemption from disclosure of personal information if it has no relation to public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. Income tax returns normally fall under this exemption. |
| Right to Information Act, 2005 | Section 25(5) | Empowers the CIC to make recommendations to public authorities. In this case, no recommendation was made under this provision. |
| Supreme Court of India | Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC, SLP (C) No. 27734/2012 | Held that income tax returns are personal information and exempt under Section 8(1)(j) unless larger public interest is shown. Relied upon by the Respondent to deny information. |
| Madhya Pradesh High Court | Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain, W.A. No. 168/2015 | Distinguished privacy in matrimonial relationships and held that a spouse is entitled to know the other spouse’s income for litigation purposes, especially maintenance. |
| Madhya Pradesh High Court | Smt. Sunita Jain vs. BSNL, W.A. No. 170/2015 | Reiterated that spousal relationship changes the nature of “personal information” in maintenance disputes. |
| Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) | Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs. Maharashtra SIC, W.P. No. 1766/2016 | Clarified that detailed salary slips and deductions are personal information, but also observed that in maintenance litigation, salary details between spouses cannot be treated as strictly private. |
| Family Courts Act / Maintenance Jurisprudence | Not cited by section | The CIC recognized that income transparency is essential for proper adjudication of maintenance cases, even though the RTI Act was the direct statute involved. |
Case Details
- Case Title: Naveen Manocha vs. PIO, Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh
- File Number: CIC/CCITC/A/2024/623845
- Forum: Central Information Commission, New Delhi
- Information Commissioner (Bench): Shri Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
- Date of Hearing: 24.12.2025
- Date of Decision: 26.12.2025
- Appellant: Naveen Manocha
- Respondent: PIO, Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh
- Counsels / Representation:
- Appellant: Appeared in person through video conference
- Respondent: Shri Rajiv Lochan, Income Tax Officer/PIO, appeared through video conference
- Nature of Dispute: RTI application seeking generic income details of wife for use in pending maintenance proceedings before Family Court, Chandigarh
Key Takeaways
- Income transparency is essential for fair maintenance; privacy cannot be used as a shield to hide real earnings in matrimonial disputes.
- Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is not absolute when spouses are litigating and financial truth directly affects justice.
- Men are routinely forced to disclose full income, while women’s earnings often remain unexamined—this order corrects that imbalance.
- Courts and authorities must look at substance, not gender, while deciding what information is personal in maintenance cases.
- Generic income disclosure protects privacy yet prevents financial suppression that unfairly burdens husbands.
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.