JUDGMENT J.K. Tandon, J. - The petitioner, Smt. Saghir Kubra Begum, has asked a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties, which are the State of U.P. the District Magistrate of Bareilly and the Superintendent of Police Bareilly, to desist from arresting and deporting her out of the country to Pakistan. The circumstances leading to this petition are these: 2. According to the petitioner she was living in India since her birth where her parents also lived. She was in this manner domiciled in this country on the 26th of January 1950 also when the Constitution came into force. In March 1950 she went to see her elder sister, Smt. Anis Kubra Begum, in Pilibhit when, it is said, riots broke out and her sister and her sister's husband in order to save their lives went away to Pakistan and she also, in view of her staying with them, went along with them to that country. Further according to her she was a minor at that time, aged about 13 years, and went to the other country without the consent and knowledge of her parents at Bareilly. She wanted to return to this country afterwards but was unable to do so without obtaining a Pakistani passport, accordingly she obtained a passport in November 1952 from Pakistan Government and returned to India in order to settle down in this country. Further according to her, since she was a minor at the time she went to Pakistan in March 1950, she was incapable of changing her nationality, she was an Indian citizen as she continued to be so despite her temporary presence in Pakistan. She has also asserted that she never acquired Pakistani citizenship. 3. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it appeared that the petitioner came to India on a Pakistani passport and an Indian visa, for the first time on 13th November 1952. In the visa asked for by her she declared herself to be a Pakistani national. On this occasion she returned to Pakistan on 10th February 1953. Thereafter she again arrived in this country on a Pakistani passport on 14th June 1954 after declaring herself to be a Pakistani national. On both these visits she accompanied her brother Askari Mehdi. Askari Mehdi left India on 18th June 1954 but the petitioner has over stayed. On this occasion she returned to Pakistan on 10th February 1953. Thereafter she again arrived in this country on a Pakistani passport on 14th June 1954 after declaring herself to be a Pakistani national. On both these visits she accompanied her brother Askari Mehdi. Askari Mehdi left India on 18th June 1954 but the petitioner has over stayed. Her permit to stay in India was originally valid upto 3rd December 1954 but was extended till 11th February 1955. The petitioner wanted a long term visa which, however, could not be granted to her because she was not prepared to submit her photo which was required by the authorities concerned. The petitioner made another effort to stay in India through an application to the Ministry of Relief and Rehabilitation but she was unsuccessful; and ultimately she served a notice on the State Government under Sec. 80, C.P.C. on 28th July 1956 contemplating to file a suit for necessary injunction against that Government from removing her from this country. According to the respondents she is a Pakistani national and is being rightly deported: she has an alternative remedy also against the deportation order issued against her. 4. It appeared that the petitioner has purposefully made certain allegations in her affidavit which cannot be accepted to be true. According to her version she was domiciled in India on 26th January 1950 but went to the other country subsequently only in March of that year with her sister and her sister's husband because of certain disturbances in Pilibhit district. From the annexures, which are copies of applications for visa made by the petitioner and have been filed with the counter affidavit, the true fact in this respect appeared to be that she left this country not in 1950 but much earlier in February 1948. At three occasions, once in October 1952, again in December 1953 and yet again (the exact date is not clear), she stated that she had migrated to the other country in February 1948. There is yet another document, Annexure IV, in which she stated that she migrated in February 1948. According to these documents, two of which bear her verification also, she left this country for Pakistan in 1948, and not in 1950 as she has now sought to allege. There is yet another document, Annexure IV, in which she stated that she migrated in February 1948. According to these documents, two of which bear her verification also, she left this country for Pakistan in 1948, and not in 1950 as she has now sought to allege. This statement, which was material in certain respects in judging how far she was or was not a citizen of this country, was purposefully suppressed in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. A petitioner who does not come out with true facts before this Court but suppresses the truth and makes a wrong statement is not entitled to its assistance under Article 226. This Court will in its discretion refuse to extend help to such a litigant on this ground alone. If the petitioner had migrated to Pakistan in February 1948 the story now set up by her that she was domiciled in India at the commencement of the Constitution and went away to the other country in March 1950 is necessarily false. It means that the case on the strength of which she claims to be an Indian citizen is not factually true. In view of the above conduct of the petitioner this petition must be rejected on this ground one. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. The stay order is discharged.