200MythilyManoharanITOChennai 05 03 1 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2009/000200
Appellant: Smt. Mythily Manoharan
Public Authority: Income Tax Department
(through Shri P.K. Sarangi, CIT-II, Chennai)
Date of Hearing: 05/03/2009
Date of Decision: 05/03/2009
FACTS
:-
By her letter of 10/09/2008, the Appellant had requested for information on the
following three points in relating to her husband Shri A. Manoharan who has retired as
Tax Assistant from the Income Tax Department in August, 2008:-
“(i) Details of family members, nomination for DCRG, nomination for
pension and other related papers with regard to pension;
(ii) The amount Shri A. Manoharan received towards DCRG, commutation
value of pension, provident fund, leave encashment and any other amount
received by him at the time of retirement or after retirement due to him.
(ii) The amount of monthly pension and family pension entitled.”
2. Shri V. Meghnathan, ITO, CPIO, vide his order dated 10/10/2008, had refused to
disclose the information in terms of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
3. Aggrieved with the decision of CPIO, the Appellant has filed first Appeal before
the Appellate Authority. In his order dated 20/11/2008, Shri P.K. Sarangi, CIT, Chennai-
II(AA) had taken note of the submission of the Appellant that she is the legally wedded
wife of Shri A. Manoharan. He, however, had rejected the request of the Appellant on
the ground that the information sought by her was ‘personal information’ relating to her
husband Shri A. Manoharan.
4. The present Appeal is directed against the order of the CPIO and the AA.
5. The matter was heard on 05/03/2009. The Appellant appeared before the
Commission. The Public Authority is represented by the officer named above. It is the
submission of the Appellant that she is the legally wedded wife of Shri A. Manoharan
who retired as Tax Assistant from Income Tax Department, Chennai, in August, 2008.
They have two children out of the wedlock — a daughter, aged 20 years and a son, aged
18 years. The children are presently staying at Chennai with the sister of her husband
and pursuing their studies. It is also her submission that pursuant to her transfer on
promotion from Chennai to Delhi, she had to move to Delhi and be away from her
200MythilyManoharanITOChennai 05 03 1 2
husband. It is her apprehension that her husband would squander away the pensionary
benefit without peer group pressure and in that eventuality, her children will be left high
and dry, without any pecuniary resources for their education and other social obligations.
It is her forceful submission that she needs the information mentioned here in above in
the interest of the future of her children.
6. On the other hand, it is the submission of Shri Sarangi that the information has
been rightly denied to her inasmuch as she is seeking information in her personal interest
and that no larger public interest is involved in the disclosure of this information.
7. It is not in dispute that the Appellant is the legally wedded wife of Shri A.
Manoharan. It has to be borne in mind that the family is the bed rock of Indian society.
In the Indian system, the wife is one of the two wheels of the chariot called FAMILY.
The chariot cannot stand, let alone run, only on one wheel. A wife plays an equally
important role in the family matters, particularly in regard to the nurture and education of
the children. This is not possible if the family resources are frittered away by a wayward
husband. Looked at from this perspective, to treat the husband and wife as separate
entities in the context of RTI Act may not be legally correct. In fact, the two of them
constitute the family. I, therefore, find force in the submission of the Appellant that she
is seeking the information about the financial aspects of her husband with a view to
protecting the interests of her teenage children.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would appear that the information
sought by the Appellant cannot be said to be ‘personal information’, as being a legally
wedded wife, she has a legitimate claim on the information sought by her for the reasons
mentioned herein above. Therefore, in my view, application of ‘larger public interest’
test may not be appropriate in the matter in hand.
DECISION
9. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. Shri V. Meghnathanm, IT
Officer (HQs), CPIO, New Block, IV Floor, BNo.121, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Chennai-
600034 is hereby directed to disclose the information sought by the Appellant in two
weeks time.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges,
prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Tele: 011 2671 73 53
200MythilyManoharanITOChennai 05 03 1 3