M. Sridhar Acharyulu DECISION
M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Central Information Commissioner
FACTS:
1. The appellant had filed RTI application on 13.06.2016, sought information regarding details of the EPF A/c No. & EPF A/c statement of Smt. M Nithya (wife of the appellant) from the date of opening of account to bill date. The CPIO, vide its reply dated 07.10.2016 informed the appellant that required information could not be provided as details requested are of personal nature and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and it infringes the privacy of the individual concerned. Therefore, the said information is exempted from disclosure as per section 8(1)(e) & (J) of the RTI Act, 2005. Being aggrieved with the CPIO reply, appellant filed First appeal on 13.10.2016 and first appellate authority upheld the decision of CPIO. Being dissatisfied, appellant has approached the Commission.
Decision:
2. The appellant stated that his wife had filed a maintenance petition against him and he wanted the information sought to prove that she was employed. The officer stated that the information sought by the appellant could not be disclosed as that was personal information of third party.
3. The fact of a person's employment as available in a public authority cannot be considered as private or personal information of another person. While the savings bank account or salary account of another person could be his or her personal information, the amount of salary of a public servant cannot be considered so. Salary information of public servant is one of the listed information to be given under Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act. Similarly the PF related information of public servant is not private information, because by a statute a share of contribution from employee and employer is credited in PF account and there will be no other credits or debits from that account. The appellant is asking about PF details of a third person who is not employer of this public authority. She is also not a public servant. However if her information is held by the public authority or it is under his control, he has to apply the Section 8 to decide the issue of disclosure. The PIO thought that it was personal information and denied under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. That section contains a proviso relating to public activity or public interest. Her employment and PF contribution cannot be considered as relating to public activity. Question remained to be decided is whether there is public interest in disclosure. Spouses inter se have right to maintenance especially when living separately or under disputes. If one spouse has filed petition for maintenance, that has to be decided based on the material information available about the incomes and investments of each spouse. Justice cannot be rendered without complete information. Right to maintenance, duty to maintain and right to seek the remedy of maintenance are recognized by law and procedure also was provided.
4. In Kusum Verma v. Mahinder Kumar Veerma case the Delhi High Court held that all kinds of investments and incomes made by spouses shall be furnished in the form of affidavit in every maintenance petition, on their own. The Court held:
19.1 Matrimonial jurisdiction is of a special nature and deserves a special attention. Lengthy trial in matrimonial proceedings is uncalled for and contrary to the spirit of Hindu Marriage Act.
19.2 The affidavit of assets, income and expenditure of both the parties are necessary to determine the rights of the parties under Sections 24 to 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, should be filed by both the parties at the very threshold in order to curb the delay and expedite the trial in terms of Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
19.3 Appl........