IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.973 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.06.2026 _______________________________________________________ Shyam Singh …….Petitioner Versus Anila Verma … Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Leena Guleria, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Pursuant to order dated 29.04.2026, respondent has filed an affidavit, disclosing therein her property as well as source of income. Aforesaid affidavit is taken on record. Perusal thereof clearly reveals that respondent owns a house. If it is so, order passed by the court below, thereby directing the petitioner to provide residential accommodation to the respondent does not appear to be sustainable, and as such, requires to be interferred. 2. While fairly admitting factum with regard to possession of the house in the name of the respondent, Ms. Leena Guleria, learned counsel representing the respondent, states that though in terms of disclosures made in the affidavit, respondent may not be entitled to residential accommodation, but fact remains that petitioner, being the father of the child born out of the wedlock between the parties, is otherwise expected to bear the child's educational and other 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 necessary expenses. While referring to certain documents annexed with the affidavit, Ms. Leena Guleria, learned counsel representing the respondent, states that child of parties to the lis at present is studying at CGC University, Chandigarh and his fee is required to be paid by the petitioner. She states that half of the fee has already been paid by the mother i.e. respondent, but yet half of the fees is to be cleared by the petitioner on or before the end of the this month. 3. Mr. Kush Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly admits that maintenance awarded in favour of the child by both the courts below has not been laid challenge in the instant proceedings, as such, petitioner cannot escape from his liability to provide maintenance to the child and within one month, he will clear all dues so that half of the fee required to be paid is deposited well within time. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent states that Rs.8,000/- was awarded by learned court below in favour of the child, from the date of domestic incidence report i.e. 27.5.2016, till the date of attainment of age of majority by the child, which he has attained on 22.1.2026 (date of birth being 22.1.2008) and as such, respondent is in arrears of Rs.9,28,000/- but as per respondent, petitioner has only paid Rs.2,53,000 and thus, he is still in arrears of Rs.6,28,000/-. 5. On the other hand, it is stated by petitioner that he has paid Rs.25,000/- on two occasions on 8.6.2026, Rs. 25,000/- on two 3 occasions i.e. 6.4.2026 and 22.4.2026, Rs.16,000/- on 8.5.2026 and Rs.20,000/- on 25.5.2026 (total Rs.1,16,000/-). To substantiate his claim, petitioner has enclosed copies of gpay receipts. However, respondent states that this amount is included in Rs.2,53,000/-. 6. Consequently, in view of the facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, impugned order dated 18.02.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, needs to be interferred and accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside to the extent of issuing a direction to the petitioner to provide residential accommodation to the respondent. However, the petitioner shall continue to pay maintenance to the child regularly in terms of afore order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner is further directed to ensure that the arrears, if any, towards maintenance awarded in favour of the child are cleared within two months, failing which he shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Sum of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid within one week, enabling the respondent to pay the remaining fee of her child within the prescribed time. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 17, 2026 (sunil)