V.A.ANAND Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel who filed writ petition reports no instruction. He states that the petitioner has taken back the bundle. The petitioner has not made any alternative arrangement.

(2.) The petitioner is none other than the husband of the fourth respondent. Matrimonial proceedings are pending between them. The fourth respondent has sought the relief of maintenance from the petitioner. For effectively pursuing her claim, she needed certain basic service details pertaining to the petitioner. She applied to the employer for furnishing the said information. Since the petitioner has raised objection, the employer did not furnish the information sought for by the fourth respondent. The appellate authority also declined to interfere. The fourth respondent therefore filed second appeal before the State Information Commission. By the impugned order, the State Information Commissioner directed the employer to furnish the information sought for by the fourth respondent. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

(3.) I am more than satisfied that the first respondent had passed an appropriate order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the fourth respondent herein cannot be called as third party. When the matrimonial proceedings are pending between them, the fourth respondent does require certain basic details. 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.