Times of India: Lucknow: Wednesday, 4th
February 2026.
After a woman accused her husband of taking Rs26 lakh as dowry, the latter sought information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act about his father-in-law's financial worth to know if his wife's father had the financial capacity, or "haisiyat", to give that much dowry. The state information commission (SIC), however, denied the information on the grounds that it was "personal".
The appellant in this case
needed information for his divorce case, which was ongoing in another court.
Information commissioner (IC) Mohammad Nadeem said that being a son-in-law does
not entitle him to obtain his father-in-law's personal information.
"The purpose of the RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private litigation, nor does this law permit unwarranted interference with a person's privacy," said Nadeem.
After the wife's accusation of taking Rs26 lakh as dowry, the man sought details of his father-in-law's salary, GPF, loans, advances and movable and immovable assets under the RTI to determine his financial status.
He argued that he was seeking information about his father-in-law and was not an outsider, and that the information was crucial for him in a dowry-related lawsuit to determine whether the person allegedly offering Rs26 lakh in dowry was capable of paying such a large sum.
The appellant, Kulwant Singh submitted an application under the RTI Act to the tehsildar of Najibabad in Bijnor district in July 2025 because his father-in-law was the revenue inspector in the tehsil.
After he did not get the information, he filed an appeal in the SIC.
Hearing the case, the bench headed by IC Mohammad Nadeem said that the Supreme Court clarified in several important judgments that salary details, income tax records, provident fund details, loans, family details and property information clearly fall under the category of personal information, which cannot generally be provided under the RTI Act.
Consequently, the commission was of the opinion that the plea of being a son-in-law, or seeking information for use in a lawsuit, cannot be considered a "large public interest" under the RTI Act. The bench clarified that the purpose of the RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private litigation, nor does the law permit unwarranted interference with an individual's privacy.
The bench said that if the applicant finds it necessary to gather such information for his or her defence, the appropriate forum is the court where his or her case is pending. He or she may legally disclose all this information before the court. An application can be made to the relevant department to obtain it, and if the court deems it necessary, it can order the relevant department to provide all this information on its own.
After a woman accused her husband of taking Rs26 lakh as dowry, the latter sought information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act about his father-in-law's financial worth to know if his wife's father had the financial capacity, or "haisiyat", to give that much dowry. The state information commission (SIC), however, denied the information on the grounds that it was "personal".
"The purpose of the RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private litigation, nor does this law permit unwarranted interference with a person's privacy," said Nadeem.
After the wife's accusation of taking Rs26 lakh as dowry, the man sought details of his father-in-law's salary, GPF, loans, advances and movable and immovable assets under the RTI to determine his financial status.
He argued that he was seeking information about his father-in-law and was not an outsider, and that the information was crucial for him in a dowry-related lawsuit to determine whether the person allegedly offering Rs26 lakh in dowry was capable of paying such a large sum.
The appellant, Kulwant Singh submitted an application under the RTI Act to the tehsildar of Najibabad in Bijnor district in July 2025 because his father-in-law was the revenue inspector in the tehsil.
After he did not get the information, he filed an appeal in the SIC.
Hearing the case, the bench headed by IC Mohammad Nadeem said that the Supreme Court clarified in several important judgments that salary details, income tax records, provident fund details, loans, family details and property information clearly fall under the category of personal information, which cannot generally be provided under the RTI Act.
Consequently, the commission was of the opinion that the plea of being a son-in-law, or seeking information for use in a lawsuit, cannot be considered a "large public interest" under the RTI Act. The bench clarified that the purpose of the RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private litigation, nor does the law permit unwarranted interference with an individual's privacy.
The bench said that if the applicant finds it necessary to gather such information for his or her defence, the appropriate forum is the court where his or her case is pending. He or she may legally disclose all this information before the court. An application can be made to the relevant department to obtain it, and if the court deems it necessary, it can order the relevant department to provide all this information on its own.
.JPG)
.JPG)
