The Madras High Court in the case VA Anand v State Information Commission and Others observed and has upheld an order of the State Information Commission wherein the court directed an employer to furnish the salary information of an employee sought by his wife.
The bench headed by Justice GR Swaminathan in the case observed that when the matrimonial proceedings were pending between the husband and the wife, thus, the quantum of maintenance would depend upon the husband’s salary and the wife could make a rightful claim only when she knew the details of the salary.
The court observed that when the matrimonial proceedings are pending between them, the fourth respondent does require certain basic details and the quantum of maintenance payable to the fourth respondent will depend upon the salary received by the petitioner. Unless the fourth respondent knows the quantum of salary received by the petitioner, she cannot make her rightful claim.
In the present case, the wife seeks the relief of maintenance from the petitioner-husband had applied to his employer for furnishing certain basic service details. However, the employer refused to furnish the information following objection by the husband. Thus, the appellant authority also refused to interfere. Therefore, the wife then approached the State Information Commission which directed the employer to furnish the information.
The court in the case observed that the wife was not a third party and during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings, she was entitled to such information.
The court also relied upon an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein the court held that the wife was entitled to know what remuneration her husband was getting from the employer. The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has sustained the order of the State Information Commission and dismissed the husband’s plea. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea of husband. The counsel, Advocate Mr. S. Abubacker Sidhic appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Mr. K. K. Senthil, Standing counsel, Mr. T. Cibi Chakraborthy, Mr. P.T.S. Narendravasan represented the respondent.