Read Time: 03 minutes

Synopsis

The court was hearing a petition filed by a husband, contesting the order issued by the State Information Commissioner. The commissioner had directed the husband's employer to disclose specific basic service details of him to his wife, who was in the process of seeking maintenance from him.

Initially, the wife had approached the husband's employer directly to obtain information regarding her spouse's salary and related details. However, encountering objections raised by the husband, the employer withheld the requested information. The appellate authority also declined to interfere.

The single judge bench of Justice GR Swaminathan opined that the State Information Commissioner had passed an appropriate order directing the husband’s employer to disclose the requested information.

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, the fourth respondent herein cannot be called as third party. When the matrimonial proceedings are pending between them, the fourth respondent does require certain basic details,” the bench stated.

Court opined that unless the wife knows the quantum of salary received by her husband, she can not make her rightful claim.

“The quantum of maintenance payable to the fourth respondent will depend upon the salary received by the petitioner,” said the bench.

Court also referred to an order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Sunita Jain V. Pawan Kumar Jain and Others (2018). It was held therein that the wife is entitled to know what remuneration her husband is getting from the employer.

In view of the above discussion, court dismissed the petition moved by the husband.

Case Title: V.A. Anand v. The State Information Commissioner and Others