AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The petitioner preferred this writ petition for issuing a direction to the respondents for payment of amount of Insurance Policies No. 192236905 and 192315954 to her along-with interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum.
The petitioner contended that she got married with late Dr. Shiv Dayal Yogi on 1st May, 1985 and since then she was living with him. Dr. Shiv Dayal Yogi died on 23.03.1997 and the petitioner was shown as his nominee, therefore, she is entitled to receive the amount of the aforesaid insurance policies after the death of Dr. Shiv Dayal Yogi.
A notice to show-cause was given to the respondents and in response thereto they have filed reply to the writ petition.
The respondents have taken a preliminary objection that the petitioner has already availed of an alternative efficacious remedy available to her u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by filing a Complaint No. 946/2001 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Jaipur, which was dismissed as not pressed on16th December, 2002 and thereafter she filed another Complaint No. 116/2003, which was dismissed on 15.07.2004 for non-appearance.
The respondents have also filed reply to the writ petition on merits to the effect that the Family Court No. 2, Jaipur, in a suit for declaration, declared Smt. Surgyani to be the legally wedded wife of late Dr. Shiv Dayal Yogi and her son Gopal to be the legitimate child of late Dr. Shiv Dayal Yogi, and also declared the alleged marriage of petitioner Smt. Kamla Yogi with late Dr. Shiv Dayal Yogi to be illegal and void. Copies of the Complaint No. 946/2004, order passed therein dated 16.12.2001, the Complaint No. 116/2003, the application containing the fact of judgment of the Family Court and the order dated 15.07.2004, have been annexed as Annexure-R/1 to Annexure-R/5, with the reply.
The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that all these facts were in the knowledge of the petitioner but she concealed the same from this Court while filing the present writ petition and it is a settled law that extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not available to such persons who have not come to this Court with clean hands. The reply to the writ petition has also assailed the claim of the petitioner on merits. He, therefore, contended that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to the reply filed by the respondents.
I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties and examined the contents of the writ petition as well as the reply thereto along-with the annexed documents.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that all these facts regarding filing of the first and second complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum and rejection thereof has not been mentioned in the writ petition. There is no reference in the writ petition about the decision given by the Family Court also. In these circumstances, I find that the petitioner has concealed material and important fact from this Court while filing the writ petition and she is not entitled to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.