Husband’s income details can not be disclosed to wife under RTI Act

Husband’s income details can not be disclosed to wife under RTI Act being his personal information – High Court

In a recent judgment, High Court has held that husband’s income details can not be disclosed to wife under the provisions of RTI Act being personal information not warranted in larger public interest.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5139 (2026) (05) abacus.in HC

In the instant case, the Petitioner/husband had challenged the order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Income Tax Officer to disclose the details of his net taxable income to his wife.

The CIC had passed the impugned order in the backdrop of an ongoing matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and he wife which had filed a maintenance claim against the petitioner.

the petitioner submitted that the information in the form of details of his net taxable income was directed to be disclosed was his personal information and as such, is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the RTI Act). He further submitted that the impugned order was unwarranted invasion of his privacy. 

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

The Hon’ble High Court observed that perusal of Section 8 (1)(j) indicates that the general rule is 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 larger public interest. 

The Hon’ble High Court further observed that there was no doubt that the information sought by the spouse of the Petitioner was “personal information”. The Supreme Court, had held that income tax returns of an individual would fall under personal information, and as such, would be exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. 

The Hon’ble High Court further noted that the RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency in the working of public authorities. It could not have been the intention of the legislature to allow disclosure of personal information of individuals, having no bearing on the public at large. Therefore, the concept of “larger public interest” cannot be interpreted in a way that allows misuse of the provisions of the Act.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that the information directed to be disclosed by way of the impugned order, did not fall under the exception of “larger public interest”.  The contention that the disclosure of the petitioner’s income details under the RTI Act was necessary for the proper adjudication of her maintenance claim, could not be accepted.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that as per the judgement of the Supreme Court, both the parties in a maintenance claim are required to file affidavits of their income, assets, and liabilities, in order to enable proper adjudication of such claim. Therefore, the spouse is not without remedy.

The Hon’ble High Court stated that 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 by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court held that the directions passed by the CIC were unsustainable in law. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.  

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Compensation to borrower upheld as bank did not verify construction progress before loan disbursals to builder
• No timeline mentioned in PMLA to forward arrest order & material in possession to Adjudicating Authority
• Release of seized assets if mandatory on completion of 120 days? Question referred to Larger Bench
• EPFO Extends date of filing of new ECR for the wage month September to 31/10/2026
• Earlier acceptance is relevant evidence in evaluating subsequent allegation of fictitious investment