ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. In W.P. No. 53403 of 2014 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer made in the petition does not survive for consideration at this stage. The petition is accordingly disposed of. In W.P. No. 9041 of 2014 The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to furnish the information sought for under Annexures-D and G. The petitioner had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking certain information relating to the passport issued to his wife Smt. Pushpa Mandikal Chandrashekar from respondent 1. By the communication at Annexure-D, the petitioner has been informed that the information sought for cannot be furnished in view of the personal details being sought and such details is not liable to be disclosed in view of the provision contained in Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the said communication which has been rejected. The said communication and the order passed by the First Appellate Authority are assailed in this petition and a mandamus has been sought to direct the respondents to provide the said information. 2. Firstly, it is to be stated, as against the order passed by the First Appellate Authority, an appeal is provided under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act to the Central Information Commission. Though the papers disclose that an appeal had been filed, the same was returned for due compliance and there is no material to indicate that the same has been resubmitted to the Central Information Commission. 3. Be that as it may, having perused the communication and the order at Annexure-D, the reasons indicated is justified in view of the provision contained under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. Hence, the same, does not call for interference. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are certain matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife Smt. Pushpa Mandikal Chandrashekar. It is in that view, the information had been sought, for taking appropriate steps in the said litigation. Needless to mention that it is always open for the petitioner to file appropriate applications in the said proceedings and such application would be considered in accordance with law in the said proceedings. Hence, I see no reason to issue any direction in this writ petition. Needless to mention that it is always open for the petitioner to file appropriate applications in the said proceedings and such application would be considered in accordance with law in the said proceedings. Hence, I see no reason to issue any direction in this writ petition. The petition is accordingly disposed of.