Not Under Exception Of Larger Public Interest: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order For Disclosure Of Husband’s Income Under RTI Act For Maintenance Claim

The High Court was considering a husband’s petition seeking a direction to the CPIO, Income Tax Officer Moradabad, not to share his income details with his wife.

The Single Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held, “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”.

"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”, it added.

Advocate Vineet Sinha represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Manish Raghav represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The husband was aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC), whereby directions were issued for the disclosure of details of his net taxable income for the FY 2007-08 and onwards. The impugned order was passed in the backdrop of an ongoing matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the second Respondent (wife). The wife had filed a maintenance claim against the petitioner, which was remitted to the Principal Judge by the Allahabad High Court in a Criminal Revision.

Arguments

It was the husband’s case that the information directed to be disclosed was his personal information and was thus exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). It was contended that the impugned order was an unwarranted invasion of his privacy

On the contrary, the wife claimed that she had a direct and legitimate interest in knowing the petitioner’s income details to get the appropriate relief in the maintenance claim filed by her.

Reasoning

Referring to Section 8 (1)(j), the Bench explained 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 the larger public interest.

According to the Bench, the information sought by the wife was “personal information” of the petitioner. Reference was made to the judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (2012) wherein it was held that income tax returns of an individual would fall under personal information, and would be exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.

“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 Bench stated while also adding, “Therefore, the concept of “larger public interest” cannot be interpreted in a way that allows misuse of the provisions of the Act.”

Thus, discarding the contention of the wife that the disclosure of the husband’s income details was required for the proper adjudication of her maintenance claim, the Bench set aside the impugned order.

Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha &Anr (2020), the Bench clarified, “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).”

Cause Title: AB v. CPIO Income Tax Officer Moradabad & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:3705)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Vineet Sinha, Ankita Gupta

Respondent: Advocates Manish Raghav, Prakash Srivastava, Rajan Thakur, Smriti Dubey

Click here to read/download Order