SUNITA JAIN Vs. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also govern the disposal of W. A. 170/2015 (Smt. Sunita Jain vs. BSNL Limited and others), as facts are common in both the appeals.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, we have noticed the facts from W. P. No. 341/2008 filed by respondent No. 1 Pawan Kumar Jain. It is an admitted fact that Pawan Kumar Jain and the appellant are husband and wife with estranged relationship. Matrimonial disputes between them are pending in the Courts. It is also an admitted fact that wife Smt. Sunita Jain is getting a sum of Rs. 7,000/- as maintenance from the appellant. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant is an Advocate. It is specifically denied that she is practicing. The respondent no. 1 is a very high officer in the Telecommunication Department and it is alleged that he is drawing salary more than Rs. 2,25,000/- per month. Be that as it may, we are not concerned with the fact in the present appeal. In her maintenance case, she filed an application under Section 91 of Cr. P. C. for a direction to the respondent No. 1 to submit his payslip for determination of proper maintenance amount, which was rejected by the trial Court. Then, she filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "the Act") to seek the salary details of the respondent No. 1. The application was rejected. Matter travelled up to the Central Information Commission and the Central Information Commission vide order dated 27. 07. 2007 asked the Central Public Information Officer, BSNL, unit of BSNL to furnish the details of monthly remuneration. This order of the Central Information Commission was challenged in writ petition by Mr. Pawan Kumar Jain respondent No. 1 as well as by the BSNL. The only ground raised in support of the writ petition was that Mr. Pawan Kumar Jain was not heard before passing the order dated 27. 07. 2007. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition only on the aforesaid ground and directed the Central Information Commission to decide the appeal afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The Central Information Commission vide order dated 26. 1 2007, after affording opportunity of hearing, passed the order under Section 4(1)(b)(x) to comply with the provisions of the Act so that information is available on the public domain. This order was challenged in second round of writ petition by respondent No. 1 as well as by the BSNL.

(3.) Learned Single Judge by the order impugned allowed the writ petition following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner and others, 2013 1 SCC 212. Against the order impugned, this Intra Court Appeal.