SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C482 No.591 of 2024 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the applicant. 2. Mr. Vipul Painuli, B.H. for the State. 3. Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate for respondent no.2. 4. By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has prayed for quashing of non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant on 05.03.2024 by learned Judge, Family Court, New Tehri, Tehri-Garhwal for recovery of ₹1,25,000/- under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he has already paid ₹90,000/- to respondent no.2-wife and could not pay the rest amount, due to financial hardship, as his salary has been withheld on account of unauthorized occupancy of the official accommodation by his wife and his own siblings, who are hand-in-glove with his wife-respondent no.2. 6. This fact is disputed by learned counsel for the respondent no.2-wife. It is submitted by him that brother and sister of the applicant were staying in that Government accommodation. The fact of the matter, according to learned counsel for respondent no.2-wife, is that the respondent no.2-wife has been staying with her parents at Srinagar, Garhwal. Actually he does not want to pay maintenance amount to respondent no.2-wife. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that summons were issued in the matter but as they were delivered in the office of applicant, therefore he did not have knowledge of proceedings under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. It was only later, when he got call from the concerned police station, he came to know about the non-bailable warrant, therefore, his absence was bona fide and unintentional. He also pleads that he is ready and 2 willing to pay the remaining amount of maintenance but only needs some more time. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that since the applicant is shirking his liability to pay the maintenance amount, this Court cannot come to his rescue. 9. In view of the above, the prayer to quash the non-bailable warrant dated 05.03.2024 against the applicant is rejected. 10. Accordingly, the present C482 application is dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 04.03.2025 SK