Posts Tagged ‘RTI’

CIC-Husband entittle to get copies of complaints filed by his wife under RTI Act

Gist: Wife files multiple police complaints against the husband. She has also filed maintenance cases. Husband approaches police for copy of wife’s complaint to defend his maintenance case. Police refuses the same. Husband files RTI which is initially rejected under the provisions of Sec 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act as disclosure of the same may endanger the life or physical safety of the appellant’s wife !!. CIC refuses to accept the police version and orders the police to give husband a copy of wife’s complaint.



August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi-110066

Tel. No. 91-11-26717356


Date of Hearing                                                : 06.08.2014

Date of Decision                                               : 06.08.2014

Appellant :                                                         Shri V. Ayyappan,


Respondent                                                       : Shri T.Bairavaswamy,

                                                                                SP/PIO UT of Pondicherry,


Information Commissioner                         : Shri Yashovardhan Azad

Relevant fact emerging from appeal:

RTI Application filed on                                 : 25.09.2012

PIO replied on                                                   : 24.10.2012

First Appeal filed on                                        : 02.11.2012

First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : 13.12.2012

Second Appeal received on                         : 13.02.2013


Information sought:


Appellant sought a copy of the complaint, filed against him by his wife in the Police station at Puducherry with the copy of enquiry report and copies of the statements given by the appellant and Smt. S.P. Nivedha.

Relevant facts emerging during hearing:

Both the parties are present. Appellant filed an RTI application on 25.09.2012 seeking copy of the complaint, filed against him by his wife in the Police station at Puducherry with the copy of enquiry report and copies of the statements given by the appellant and Smt. S.P. Nivedha. PIO on 24.10.2012 refused to give information stating therein that the information could not be provided under the provisions of Sec 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act as disclosure of the same may endanger the life or physical safety of the appellant’s wife who resides in Puducherry. The First Appellate Authority vide his order dated 13.12.2012 directed the PIO to furnish a copy of the statement given by the appellant, if recorded, unless the statement was required for any criminal case. Appellant stated that he wanted copies of statement by his wife and the enquiry report in connection with the maintenance case going on in a civil court. He also stated that his wife had filed another complaint against him in Dindigul (Tamil Nadu), copy of which was made available to him through his RTI application.

Respondent stated that on 11.07.2012 a complaint was lodged by the appellant’s wife against the appellant and his parents regarding dowry harassment, safety and security.The appellant was called for inquiry during which both the parties agreed on 28.07.2012 through signed statements, to settle the issue by approaching the family court. Subsequently, the appellant asked for copy of wife’s complaint and the inquiry report which was denied to him by invoking exemption under section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act.


It is clear from perusal of records and the statements by the appellant and the respondent during the hearing that the appellant and his wife are engaged in a bitter marital dispute and maintenance case in this regard is ongoing in a civil court. Appellant’s wife filed complaints against the appellant in not one but two police stations. The Puducherry police has refused to give the copy of a complaint by the appellants wife and inquiry report, on grounds of physical safety, by invoking exemption under section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act. The respondent was not able to clarify as to how the physical danger to the wife’s safety is enhanced by the appellant knowing the contents of her complaint, since the substance of her charges is already known through the contents of the complaint filed in another police station made available to him through another RTI Application. Since the inquiry by Puducherry Police is over and the Complainant is signatory to the letter by the both parties for approaching the family court, due to which inquiry was closed- clearly strengthens his claim to get a copy of the documents. The inquiry is also not required in other cases.

The appellant has stated that he needs the documents for his defence/strengthening his case in the maintenance suit filed in the civil court. Besides, the appellant has not asked for any personal details of his wife but only the contents of documents relating to the charges against him.

In view of above, the Commission does not accept the grounds taken by the respondents for denial of information under Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act. The Commission directs the respondents to provide the information sought in the RTI application to appellant, within two weeks of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(Yashovardhan Azad)

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.


(Tarun Kumar)

Joint Secretary & Additional Registrar

Categories: CIC Decisions Tags:

CIC: Spouse not third party if marriage subsists.

Good News!

The people who are fighting with RTI officials in getting the wife’s ITR details, PF details or any other financial details will be rejoice to hear that their RTI’s wont be rejected on the basis of “Third Party Information”.

Because Central Information Commission has ruled that if the marriage between the spouse is subsisting then the information of the spouse wont be THIRD PARTY.

pls read the full judgment below………


Central Information Commission

 Room No. 308, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

File No:CIC/RM/A/2012/000038/LS

Appellant : Ms Juhi Jadli

Public Authority : Income-tax Department, Noida

Date of hearing : 03.06.2013

Date of Decision : 03.06.2013


Heard today dated 03.06.2013. Appellant not present. The public authority is represented by Shri S.S. Chahal, ITO Ward 1(4), Nodia.

2. By RTI application dated 07.09.2011, the appellant had sought the following information about her husband Shri Shobhit Garg :

(i) Source of income declared by him;

(ii) Details of deductions, such as housing loans, LIC etc., claimed by him;

(iii) Certified copies of the ITRs filed by him for the years 2006-07 to 2010-11.

3. Vide letter dated 09.10.2011, the CPIO had refused to disclose this information on the basis of objection filed by Shri Shobhit Garg. The same view was taken by FAA in order dated 30.01.2012.

4. It appears to me that there is estrangement between the husband and the wife. The wives generally try to collect this information for canvassing their cases in the Family Courts for grant of maintenance. A wife can not be treated as third party in the strict sense of the term, so long as the marriage subsists. However, after divorce, the legal position changes. I am told that marriage still subsists between the appellant and Shri Shobhit Garg. Hence, it will not be correct to deny information on the ground that the appellant is a third party. In the given facts, I order that gross income and net taxable income declared by Shri Shobhit Garg in the last ITR filed by him, may be disclosed to the appellant. No other information is required to be disclosed.

5. This order may be complied with in 04 weeks.

( M.L. Sharma )

Information Commissioner

Authenticated. Additional copies of the order shall be supplied on application and payment of fees, as per RTI Act, to the CPIO of the Commission.


Dy Registrar Address of the Parties :-

(l)The ITO & CPIO, (2)Ms Juhi Jadli, D/oShri Anil Kumar Sharma

Income tax Department, Aaykar Bhavan, 44, Sevak Ashram Road, Dehradoon

G Block, Sector 20, Uttrakhand

Noida, Up

DIG penalised for refusal to provide information to petitioner

October 10, 2011 Leave a comment

A Staff Reporter – The Telegraph

Guwahati, May 31: A senior police official has been fined by the State Information Commission of Assam for refusing to provide information to a petitioner under the Right to Information Act.
The petitioner had formally moved the police officer twice with his plea.
Commission sources today revealed that on May 15, former Guwahati senior superintendent of police S.N. Singh, recently promoted to the post of deputy inspector-general (northern range), was fined Rs 250 a day.
The commission imposed the fine under Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The police official was taken to task for failing to furnish the first information report (FIR) sought by complainant Tarun Dey of Bhaskar Nagar within 30 days of receiving the petition.
But more than the penalty imposed on him, the observations made by the commission regarding the functioning of the police force are even more damning.
“This is a sad commentary on the functioning of a public office in a democracy, where the public authorities are expected to be responsive to the people,” states the ex parte order, issued by chief information commissioner R.S. Mooshahary and state information commissioner B.K. Gohain.
The order also stated that the fine should be calculated from the date on which the 30-day period set for furnishing the information begins.
Sources said the commission has also issued summons to Singh to appear on June 6, the next date of hearing, when the senior police official may make his submissions as to why the penalty should not be realised from him as calculated before the hearing.
Neither Singh nor any person representing the office of the SSP was present when the order was passed.
Sources explained that Dey had filed a petition before the chief information commissioner, stating that he submitted two applications, dated December 8, 2006, and January 20, 2007, under the RTI Act before the Guwahati city superintendent of police. They had requested the SP to provide him with a copy of an FIR (an ejahar) dated September 12, 2006, lodged by his wife, Jharna Choudhury, and a copy of the petition withdrawing the same FIR.
Despite the submissions, Dey was not provided a copy of the FIR of September 12, 2006 and a certified copy of the withdrawal petition dated September 13, 2006, by the SP.
Dey also said he had made a number of attempts to meet the city SSP but was refused every time. The commission found that it was a clear case of refusal to provide information to the petitioner.


Categories: CIC Decisions, RTI Tags:

A circular is published by the Department of Personnel and Training No. 12/9/2009-IR, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India on 24th May 2010

September 26, 2011 Leave a comment
Categories: RTI Tags:

Sub: Implementation of CrPC Amendments 2010 i.r.o. section 41

September 26, 2011 1 comment

all take a print out and send to u sp or cp .pls modifed designation and your city name and send by speed post and if reply not come pls file RTI .




The .Supritendent of Police

District Akola


Sub: Implementation of CrPC Amendments 2010 i.r.o. section 41




Ministry of Home Affairs has issued a notification for Amendments in the Code of Criminal Procedure effective 2nd November as per knowledge of the applicant. As advised by Hon’ble Minister of Home Affairs, a committe was set up especially to look into the provisions of section 41 (power of police to arrest without warrant).


NCRB and other sources have clearly revealed and it has been acknowledged by Hon’ble Supreme court, the Government and Hon’ble President of India that there is rampant misuse of the IPC section 498A which has enormous power to the police to arrest without warrant. Almost 98% of cases of IPC 498A are false. This is causing huge strain on the public exchequer due to the lost time of the police, harassment of the accused and time of the court in persuing these false cases. The general public and the courts have at several times rapped the police for abbetting such acts and misuse of power to arrest.


The National Police Commission in its Third Report referring to the quality of arrests by the police in India mentioned power of arrest as one of the chief sources of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60% of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2% of the expenditure of the jails.



Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joginder Singh case had established the guidelines and circular issued by the DGP to that effect but all were interpreted as per whims of the police officers making arrests.By default each and every accused in the false IPC 498A case were arrested without any application of mind or giving a thought to the age of the arrestees.In today’s India, there is no respect for elders, senior citizens and old aged parents or breast-feeded children; with one word of Daughter-in-Law, they are dragged to jail; in the name of Women empowerment. This is clearcut abuse of the law and almost all the times such wives go unpunished.


Hon’ble SP , as a tax-paying citizen, I would like you to respond whether these amendments in the CrPC is made aware to all the police staff and law enforcement officer’s under you? I would also like to know whether all the staff working under you are abiding to the CrPC amendments notified in November 2010. Are summons notice being issued to all the accused in such cases where the punishment is less than 7 years? Are the reasons being recorded in case of arrests or no-arrests?



Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for “ignorance of the law does not excuse” or “ignorance of the law excuses no one”) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.


Hence for meting the ends of justice in case of genuine cases and to ensure that all criminals are brought to book, you are requested to ensure that these amendments be notified to all the staff working under you. It should not happen that because you have not followed the code the real culprits and criminals will move scot-free in the society.


Hon’ble Commissioner madam, having high regards for you after you have assumed the office at AKOLA and your subsequent steps in raising the morals of the police force by introducing several of innovative ideas,  I would be pleased to receive a copy of any such direction issued to your staff either by you or from the office of the DGP, Maharashtra state.




Thanking you,


Sincerely yours,



Categories: News, RTI Tags: ,


September 21, 2011 3 comments

Application for obtaining information under the Right to Information Act, 2005

(Your Name and Adress)

Public Information Officer

Reference : FIR No —–Dated—– at XYZ Police Station

Respected Sir,

Subject: Particulars of Information Required on Cr.No:XXYY/2009

1. Please provide me the Station Diary / Police diary and Roll Call of Cr.No: XXYY/2009 starting from dd/mm/yyy to dd/mm/yyyy and the entire case dairy details (communication docs between I.O, Inspector of Police and ACP).

2. Please supply me information on date, time & place of crime happened.

3. Please provide me I.O details, date, time & place of investigation.

4. As per the complainant statement, she left matrimonial house on —– due to harassment, please supply the address and time of the incident.

5. Please supply me Cr.No: XYZ/2009 Investigation/enquiry details (happened at crime place, ).

6. Please provide me Cr.No: XYX/2009 case certified FIR copy, documentary evidences collected & Charge Sheet.

7. Please supply me certified copies of the documentary evidences collected by the I.O before fixing my family into the case (collected from Miyapur for the allegations happened at Miyapur).

8. Please supply me certified copies of the documentary evidences collected by the I.O before fixing my family into the case (collected from Dilsuknagar for the allegations happened at Dilsuknagar).

9. Please supply me information which are the allegations happened at Dilsuknagar.

10. As per the complainant’s statement, they gave 2 plots, 11 lacks rupees cash and 40 tulas gold. Please provide those 2 plots details given and the date of transfer of property and documentary evidences collected by Investigation officer.

11. Please provide the documentary evidences or bank statements for the transaction of 11 lakhs amount.

12. Please provide documentary evidences or receipts for 40 tulas Gold and on which date they have given to accused.

13. Certified copy of complainant’s medical or hospital records showing the physical harassment.

14. Please supply me information on when Mr.FIL came to know about the incident (time, place and through which media).

15. Kindly supply information under which sections of the Cr.P.C, the investigation is carried out at Dilsukh Nagar.

16. As per Cr.P.C- 177 to 181, investigation on the crime should have happened at the crime place (in the present case crime place is Miyapur). Please provide me details whether this investigation is done as per the legal procedure.

17. Kindly provide me information under which section(s) of Cr.P.C or other supporting Act, investigation is carried out for the crime FIR. xyz/2009.

18. As per complaint, it is stated that my family members instigated me to demand dowry, does this allegation, abetting demanding dowry attracts 498-A IPC on my family members. If answer is YES, please provide the supporting reference docs for the same.

19. All the allegations reported on accused persons happened at Miyapur. For the investigation on the crime happened outside your FIR registered PS limits, needs Honorable Court cognizance under Cr.P.C (156 & 170) sections, correct me if I am wrong. Please supply me the permission received from Honorable Court by the investigation team to continue their investigation.

20. Kindly supply me information on the legal Act with section (sub-section if any) under which Saroor Nagar PS can investigate (to file charge sheet U/s-498A IPC) for the crime FIR happened at Miyapur.

21. As per Cr.P.C-161 statements of the complainant’s mother and witnesses dowry is given at the time of marriage. Giving dowry and abetting giving dowry is also crime. Kindly supply information why police did not register the case against these persons.

22. Kindly provide me information on not collecting the neighbor’s statements at my house, Miyapur,Hyderabad.

23. Please supply me information when I.O met (date, time and place) my sister, brother, parents and relatives (accused) and informed (with which medium) about the allegations on them during the investigation.

24. Please supply me the details of people with whom I.O met during his/her investigation.

25. Please supply me information why the complainant delayed to report the crime onMay-15th 2008.

26. Please supply me the documentary evidences supporting the crime by my relatives.

27. Please send me the details (with bills) of the furniture that the complainant gave to us.

28. Please specify the duration of stay of the complainant with my family at Miyapur and also specify the address of stay.

29. Does any proof submitted to the police that show complainant lived with us.

30. Complainant’s maternity uncle Mr. BOBBA Reddy says that 1 lack rupees dowry given at the time of marriage. Her mother says 11 lacks dowry given. Which statement is considered to be true by the I.O before filing the charge sheet?

31. Does the I.O have given the opportunity to the accused to tell the facts with him/her before submitting the charge sheet in the honorable court? Please supply me the supporting evidence.

32. Please provide me why I.O not interested to collect the statements from neighbors at Miyapur.
33. Does it require collecting the statements from the neighbors at Miyapur?
34. Please supply me information on “Jurisdiction” of PS in dealing the criminal cases.
35. Does your PS have the jurisdiction to file the charge sheet?
36. Does it required to inform the accused persons about the allegations on them. If answer is yes, does it happen in this case?
37. Do you admit that I.O failed to transfer the case to the respective PS, which has jurisdiction to entertain the case?

Please provide me information on the above mentioned. For any particular item above if information is not available, kindly inform me why that particular item details were not available. If any of the above items is not understood kindly let me know, for rest of the items please send me the information.

Information required: Through Registered Post

Whether the applicant is below poverty line : No

Language demanded (U/s 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005): English

I.P.O (for Rs. 10/-) No:
In case the subject matter /any of the information is held by / related to another public authority, You are requested to transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other Public authority with intimation to the undersigned (Section 6(3) of RTI Act).


Date: Signature

1. I have given a petition dated ——- requesting my wife to join matrimonial life, why IO did not disclosed that information in the Charge sheet or did not present it to the Honourable court.

2. Complainant and her parents very well knows about this petition for reqest to join marital life and in reply to that she denied to join marital life, but nowhere they mentioned about this in the FIR. Why the investigation officer did not disclosed this information in the charge sheet.

(This are Sample questions, you can change / add as per your situation)

RTI Seeking Employment details from Company

September 10, 2011 Leave a comment

Application filed under the RTI Act, 2005

Ref:- RTI/AK/003/RTI10911                                                                                                                  Dated:- 10/09/2011

O/o EPF, APFC, Raghuraj Arcade,

Plot no. 15-B, Civil Line, Akola-444001
Maharashtra State.

  1. Name Of the Applicant:                                                                    XXXXXXXXX XXXXX
  2. Address for Communication:              XXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX   XXXXXX XX,                                                                                                                             XXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX-
  3. Particulars of Information Required:                                   Information on Employment Details.

i.     Period of Information:-                                               From   Jan 2000 till date.

ii.     Description of Information required:-
I wish to inform your kind perusal that, my wife XX XXX XXXXXXXXX D/o Mr/ XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX, R/o XXXXXXXX,XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX have filed a criminal maintenance case against me, in which she have claimed that, “she is not working anywhere”, as per my information she was/is working in your branch.

In view of above I humbly request you to furnish me the following information through the RTI Act 2005, in the interest of justice.

Period for which information required : 2000 t0 till date.

A. Kindly provide me the details of the XX XXX XXXXXXXXX in which Branch of EPF she is working, kindly provide me the date of Joining and the latest salary slip / details along with the E.P.F no if any.

B. Kindly provide me the details of the XX XXX XXXXXXXXXin which Branch of EPF she has worked, if she had left the job kindly provide me the date of Joining & date of leaving the job and the last drawn salary slip / details along with the E.P.F no if any.

Request / Relief sought
a) The maintenance case section CRPC 125 is registered in Hon’ble Family Court, Akola.

b) The undersigned financial interest is affected in the matter, so undersigned is seeking legal relief from the Court.

c) The disclosure of financial details, mainly employment details of Smt Nayana Duchale would surely help me to show my innocence in court.

e) The disclosure of information sought is, therefore, in larger public interest. The information should therefore be provided.

f) BECAUSE, With Reference to CIC Decision No CIC/SG/A/2009/000106/3889 27 June 2009 in the case of Deep Public School D2, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi (The Commission has perused the information and does not see any merit in the exemption claimed under Section 8(1)(j) by the Chairman of the School-the third party. In view of this the information will have to be provided.)

g) BECAUSE, with reference to CIC Decision No CIC/AD/A/09/00366 Dated 4th May,2009(In this case Wife/Appellant asked certified copies of all documents of passport file including marriage certificate and application form as submitted in passport office. CPIO denied as per sec 8 (1)(j) CIC directed CPIO to provide information with remark Information being sought is not a thirt party information since the appellant is seeking information about hir leaglly wedded husband.

h) BECAUSE, with reference to CIC Decision No 3774/IC(A)2009 F.No CIC/MA/A/2009/000102 Dated 18th March,2009: ( In this matter wife asked information about her husbands medical expenses, service record etc CPIO denied citing section 8 1(J) . Honorable IC M.M.Ansari directed the CPIO to provide all information citing Since appellant is legally married wife with a child and has asked for details about her husband, there is no justification in withholding any part of information to the appellant as it would assist in resolving the issue by the competent authorityAs long as couple is not legally seperated refusal to share information …is untenable.

i) BECAUSE, with reference to CIC Decision No 1816/IC/(A)/2008 F.No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00583 Dated 10th Jan,2008(In this matter husband asked PF detail of wife. CPIO denied citing section 8(1)(j) .CIC directed CPIO to provide information to husband with remark The appellants financial interest is affected in the matter, as he is seeking legal relief from the court

j) BECAUSE, with reference to CIC Decision No 2993IC(A)/2008 F. NO. CIC/MA/A/2008/00866 Dated 5th Aug. 2008 (In this case Wife asked whereabouts/residential Address of her husband working in ONGC,CPIO denied citing sec 8(1)(j) .CIC directed to provide information.

Initial fee of Rs10/- in the way of Court Stamp Fee has been enclosed with application as prescribed under Right to Information Rules 2005.

It is requested that, the applicant is a citizen of India, would like to receive the above said information at most urgent on the address mentioned below. For any clarification contact undersigned at, Mobile No: 9923005066 or at address given below.

It is submitted that, the above information pertains to your esteemed office in your statutory capacity as CAPIO under section 5 (1) of RTI Act read with 5(4) and 5(5) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Undersigned is ready to pay processing fee (if any) required to furnish above said information.

Now, at the end, I may reasonably expect that, honorable PIO will honor the decisions of CIC as stated above while making decision on this RTI application so that, at least the wastage of time of higher authorities in further proceedings and Legal hassle could be avoided in appeal while discussing the same matter.
Thanks & Regards,




Categories: RTI, RTI with Wife's Employer Tags:
Fight for Justice

A crusaders blog for inspiring thought.

Stand up for your rights

Gender biased laws

MyNation Foundation - News

News Articles from MyNation, india - News you can use

498afighthard's Blog

Raising Awareness About Gender Biased Laws and its misuse In India

The Blog

The latest news on and the WordPress community.