The Delhi High Court has held that a husband’s income tax details cannot be disclosed to his estranged wife under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in the context of matrimonial disputes.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav recently passed the order on a writ petition filed by a husband challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission on July 22, 2021, which had directed the disclosure of his net taxable income from the financial year 2007–08 onwards.
Setting aside the CIC’s order, the High Court held that disclosure of income tax details would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy and would be contrary to the statutory exemption provided under the RTI framework. Noting that income tax returns constituted ‘personal information,’ it ruled that they were exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Such disclosure did not fall within the exception of larger public interest contemplated under the statute, it added.
The dispute arose from matrimonial proceedings between the parties, in which the wife sought access to the husband’s income details to support her maintenance claim. Rejecting this contention, the single-judge Bench clarified that such personal financial information cannot be accessed through RTI proceedings.
The Court relied on the precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner,’ which held that income tax returns were personal information and were protected from disclosure unless a clear case of larger public interest was established.
Interpreting Section 8(1)(j), the Court observed that the statutory scheme prioritises protection of individual privacy unless disclosure serves a demonstrable public interest. It held that matrimonial disputes are private in nature and do not meet the threshold of larger public interest required to override the exemption.
Addressing the wife’s argument regarding the necessity of such information for maintenance proceedings, the Court noted that adequate procedural safeguards already exist. It referred to the judgment in ‘Rajnesh v. Neha,’ which mandated the filing of affidavits disclosing assets and liabilities by both parties in maintenance cases, enabling the court to make an informed determination.
The Bench held that the wife was not without remedy and could seek disclosure of financial details through appropriate proceedings before the competent court, in accordance with established legal procedures. Holding the CIC’s directions to be legally unsustainable, the High Court set aside the impugned order and disposed of the petition.