The petitioner claimed that the family denied her share in assets since she married a Dalit
The petitioner claimed that the family denied her share in assets since she married a Dalit
A woman’s petition for the income details of her mother and brother under the Right to Information Act, 2005, has been rejected by the Income Tax Department. The petitioner accused her family of usurping the assets after her father’s death since she married a Dalit.
Restricting her access to the information on her father’s income, the Chief Public Information Department, Income Tax Department, Tamil Nadu, said the details of the income of the petitioner’s mother and brother could be provided only after she produced a ‘no objection letter’ from them.
Kayalvizhi of Ramanathapuram moved the Central Information Commission against the decision of the CPIO, Income Tax Department, Tamil Nadu. In her appeal, the petitioner said she belonged to a Most Backward Community and married a Scheduled Caste man.
Inter-caste marriage
Her family did not accept the inter-caste marriage. But her father alone stayed in touch with her without the knowledge of the other family members. On May 10, 2021, her father died of COVID-19, but her family did not inform her of his death. She paid homage to her father only after obtaining an order from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
Stating that her father had been into various businesses and had assets, Ms. Kayalvizhi accused her mother of transferring all the properties in the name of her brother. Documents were fabricated to deny her of her right to the family assets. Under the RTI Act, she sought the complete details of the income and sources of income of her deceased father and other family members to get an equal right to the properties.
Third party information
Rejecting the plea, the CPIO said the information sought by the petitioner impinged on the privacy of the third parties concerned; hence, the information was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The official added that the other issues raised by the petitioner pertained to family disputes, which were beyond the scope of the Act.
Upholding the decision of the CPIO, the Central Information Commission said no further relief could be granted. But it empathised with the petitioner and advised her to pursue the matter through appropriate channels.
