Supreme Court: Wife who is working lady with sufficient salary is not entitled to get maintenance

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides on merits, we

do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. In our

considered opinion, the interest of justice would be met if the

child, Kumari Preksha (aged about 16 years as of now) is awarded

maintenance. Since, the petitioner is a working lady with

sufficient salary, we decline to award any maintenance in her

favour.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16051/2017

KUSUM BHATIA Vs SAGAR SETHI 

Date : 16-09-2019 

CORAM :  MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

Print Page

Whether husband can obtain salary details of wife under right to information Act?

It cannot be lost sight of in this case that the relation between the person seeking information of the lady, who is employed in a private company, is that of a husband and wife. On account of a marital discord, the wife has dragged the husband before the District Court. For the purposes of his litigation, the husband requires the information about the salary and provident fund accumulations of the wife. Such information could also be acquired by the husband by making an application before the District Court. Rather than perpetuating the hardships of the husband, the CIC has found it fit to direct the petitioner to disclose the said information.

19. In this backdrop, it is imperative that the petitioner must first come to a conclusion, either under sub-clauses (e) or (j) of Section 8(1) that the information is confidential and cannot be disclosed. It is only when the competent authority justifies the non-disclosure under the first part of sub-clauses (e) or (j) that that the second part in the said sub-clauses would have to be considered to the extent of whether the information is required to be disclosed in larger public interest. In my view, the petitioner has failed in the first place to justify it's refusal to disclose the information. The husband seeking information cannot be said to be a stranger or a third party. The information sought by him also cannot be said to be confidential.

20. In my view, if matrimonial matters are being prosecuted by the parties, there should not be any embargo on divulging the PF accumulations of the wife since the said information is sought by the husband to be placed before the District Court. It also cannot be ignored that the wife is not before this Court and has not challenged the impugned order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 10690 of 2017

Decided On: 06.09.2017

The Central Public Information Officer Vs.  The Central Information Commissioner and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Ghuge, J.

Citation: 2017(6) MHLJ 795

Print Page

Whether husband can obtain information about salary of wife under right to information Act?

The case of the petitioner before this Court is that
her husband (respondent No. 8) is seeking personal information
of the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short
“RTI Act”), and these information are being given to him by the
concerned authority. The contention of the petitioner before
this Court is that the information sought by her husband are
not covered under the RTI Act, as the information being sought
are relating to her salary, posting etc., which are personal in
nature.
Perused the information sought by the informant
from the department. The information sought are as to how
many teachers are working. The salary being given to the
petitioner etc. These information do not appear to be private in
nature in any manner nor are they exempted under the RTI
Act. Nothing has been shown by the petitioner, which may 
suggests that the information sought by the respondent,
relating to the petitioner, is covered under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI
Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2489 of 2016

Jasmeet Kaur. Vs  State of Uttarakhand & others.

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Citation: AIR 2017 UTTAR 1

Print Page

WHEN WIFE’S SALARY CANNOT BE ATTACHED FOR LATE HUSBAND’S DEBT?

In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that, the appellant received the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, on the death of her husband in a motor accident. In the light of the principle enunciated in the decisions referred to supra, out of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal the amount of compensation by way of 'loss to the estate' of the deceased represents the money equivalent of the loss sustained by the appellant as a legal representative of the deceased, which cannot be proceeded against for realising any amount due from the deceased. On the other hand, the amount of compensation, if any, received by way of 'loss of estate', under the heads pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of amenities, etc. of the deceased, which goes to the appellant as the legal representative of the deceased by virtue of Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, could be proceeded against for realising any amount due from the deceased. In the case on hand, there is no material to indicate that the appellant had received any compensation by way of 'loss of estate'. Moreover, even if the appellant had received any compensation by way of 'loss of estate' on the death of her husband, that will not entitle the 4th respondent society to proceed against the attachable portion of her salary, since recourse to such a procedure can be permitted only if there is a specific agreement executed by the appellant in terms of Section 37 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, read with Rule 52 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. Therefore, merely for the reason that, on the death of her husband, the appellant received certain amount of compensation in the motor accident claim, the attachable portion of her salary cannot be proceeded against for realising the balance amount outstanding in the loan availed by her late husband from the 4th respondent society. In such circumstances, Ext.P2 communication of the 3rd respondent directing the 5th respondent to proceed against the salary of the appellant cannot be sustained.

21. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge that, since the appellant obtained compassionate employment on the death of her husband; received a sizable amount as compensation in the motor accident claim; and undertaken in Ext.R4(b) to wipe off the liability of her late husband after paying Rs.10,000/-, the 4th respondent society is justified in proceeding against the attachable portion of her salary.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.

Writ Appeal No.1022 of 2015

Dated this the 27th day of May, 2015

APPELLANT

T A ARCHANA 

Vs

 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 

Print Page