Central Information Commission
Alka vs Department Of Millitary Affairs on 11 March, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DPTMA/A/2024/631959
Alka ........Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The CPIO,
Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command,
Naval Base Post, Visakhapatnam-530014
Date of Hearing : 09.03.2026
Date of Decision : 11.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
Relevant facts emerging from second appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 03.05.2024
First appeal filed on : 28.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 07.06.2024
Complaint dated : 26.07.2024
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
1. The complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.02.2024 seeking the following information:
" 1) Please Provide the information My Husband Vivek Working in Indian Navy NO-249896-Y Rank-LOG I (F & A) UNIT-INS PALLAVA ANUPURAM TAMILNADHU 603127 Monthly Gross and total Net Income and latest Six Months salary Slip Photo copy ( As per the order of Hon'ble High Court of M.P Matter of Smt. Sunita Vs Pawan Kumar Jain and Others W.A No.168/2015 it is my right to have this information).
2) Please Provide the information in Writing How many Complaints were received against My Husband Vivek Working in Indian Navy NO-249896-Y Rank-LOG I (F & A) UNIT-INS PALLAVA ANUPURAM TAMILNADHU 603127 in the HQENC Visakhapatnam and Personal Unit in the Year 2023-24 and what action was taken by the HQENC Visakhapatnam and Unit INS PALLAVA on those Complaints.
3) Please provide the information of My Maintenance allowance Status in HQENC Visakhapatnam Alka W/o Vivek Working in Indian Navy NO-249896- Y Rank-LOG I (F & A) UNIT-INS PALLAVA ANUPURAM TAMILNADHU 603127.
4) Please provide the information IN Indian Navy what action does the husband's until take on the complaint of assault given by the wife against her husband".
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 03.05.2024 stating as under:
1. Refer to your RTI application DMAND/R/E/24/00265 dated 09 Feb 24 and HQENC/PIO even no. letter dated 12 Apr 24.
2. Query wise response to your RTI application based on inputs received from HQENC/ Staff Officer (Pers) II and INS Pallava is as follows:
(a) Query 1. As per various CIC decisions, only remuneration is admissible under RTI Act. Deduction, investments, loans etc are considered personal information. As pay slip contains deductions also, complete pay slip is considered personal information and exempt under sec 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. Based on the input of concerned department evaluated pay and allowances of are given below:
i) Basic Pay - Rs 26800/-
ii) DA - Rs 14720/-
iii) TA - Rs 1800/-
iv) DA on TA - Rs 828/-
Page 2 of 6
Total - Rs 44148/-
(b) Query 2. In the year 2023-24 complaints pertaining to marital discord between Vivek, Log I (F&A) and you through different channels were received by INS Pallava. Based on the complaints receive a detailed investigation was conducted by INS Pallava and the same has been replied to you vide HQENC letter RP/0202/249896-Y dated 22 Nov 23.
(c) Query 3. The decision wrt maintenance case has been forwarded to you vide HQENC letter JA.MA/249896-Y dated 13 Mar 24.
(d) Query 4. The query sought by you does not fall under purview of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.03.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 07.06.2024 stated as under::
"Ref to your appeal Reg No DMAND/A/E/24/00163 dated 28 Mar
24. Your appeal has been examined in accordance with the extant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 along with submission of PIO. Your initial RTI application was received at HQENC/PIO Office on 14 Mar 24 in response of which, interim reply letter PIO/0128/MAR 24/12 dated 12 Apr24 was dispatched by PIO on 12 Apr 24 within mandatory timeline of 30 days since receipt of RTI application on 14 Mar 24. Your appeal under reference is hereby disposed of".
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Mrs. Alka through her brother Mr. Nikesh Respondent: Mr. S. Rolingson Singh, PIO, Eastern Naval Command
5. Proof of having served the copy of the second appeal to the respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that a court case is pending between her and her husband and for the said purpose she had sought certain information regarding the salary and salary benefits of her husband. She contended that the complete information was not provided to her and the respondent CPIO denied the same by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and only partial information was furnished vide reply dated Page 3 of 6 03.05.2014. It was further submitted that she had also lodged a complaint with the Service Department against her husband, however no action taken report has been provided to her.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the salary information as available with them was provided to the appellant and other details were refused under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It was further stated that with respect to Query No. 2, complaints pertaining to marital disputes between the appellant and her husband were received in the office during the year 2023-2024 and a detailed examination/investigation was conducted by the competent authority and the same had already been communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 22.11.2023. It was also stated that certain queries do not fall within the purview of the RTI Act and therefore such information cannot be provided. Further, it was submitted that at the relevant point of time the husband of the appellant was on sailing duty and therefore he was not entitled to HRA.
8. Written submissions dated 05.03.2026 filed by the respondent CPIO is taken on record which states that on 12.04.2024 an interim reply was furnished to the appellant intimating delay in disposal as the information is being collected from INS Pallava. After collecting the information, it was disposed of vide letter dated 03.05.2024. The First Appeal of the appellant was also appropriately disposed of by FAA on 07.06.2024. It is also stated that the sought information constitutes personal information of a third party and their disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy and is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, the matter pertains to a matrimonial dispute and a maintenance case pending before a competent court, which may obtain such records directly through due legal process, if required. It is also stated that complaints relating to marital discord had been received and examined by the competent authorities and a reply had already been communicated to the appellant vide Headquarters letter dated 22.11.2023.
Decision
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records observes that the core grievance of the appellant relates to non-disclosure of complete details regarding the salary and service benefits of her husband, which she had sought in the context of an ongoing matrimonial dispute.
Page 4 of 6The Commission notes that the respondent CPIO has submitted that the salary information available with the public authority was duly furnished to the appellant. However, detailed salary slip containing personal financial details was denied by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the ground that the same constitutes personal information of a third party and its disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The Commission observes that service-related particulars such as detailed salary components, benefits and other personal service records ordinarily fall within the ambit of personal information, disclosure of which is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless a larger public interest is established.
In the present matter, the appellant has sought such information primarily in connection with a matrimonial dispute and maintenance proceedings stated to be pending before a competent court. The Commission notes the submission of the respondent that such matters are sub judice and the competent court dealing with the maintenance proceedings has the authority to call for the relevant records through due legal process if it considers such information necessary for adjudication. In this regard, the Commission observes that the RTI Act cannot be used as a substitute for the process available before a court of law in matrimonial or maintenance disputes.
In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission is satisfied that the respondent CPIO has provided the available information on record and has appropriately invoked the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act for denial of personal information of a third party. Accordingly, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL (सं जीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) date: 11.03.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Col. Prabhat Kumar Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the Parties:
1. CPIO Headquarters, Eastern Naval, Command, Naval Base Post, Visakhapatnam-530014
2. Smt Alka Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)