HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.975 of 2011 ORDER:- The husband is the petitioner in this criminal revision. The point that is raised for determination is whether or not the husband can be permitted to recall his wife i.e. P.W1 in a maintenance case filed by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C for cross-examining her further. 2. The Family Court–cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda by his order dated 01.02.2011 dismissed the application i.e. Crl.M.P.No.539 of 2010 of the husband for recalling P.W1 on the ground that he failed to make out any case for recalling her. Questioning that order the husband came up with this revision. 3. The wife i.e. the first respondent herein filed the maintenance case M.C.No.41/2009 in the above Family Court seeking maintenance for herself and minor daughter of the parties at the rate of R.10,000/- per month for each of them. The husband filed counter and resisted it and parties went to trial. It is seen from the affidavit of the husband filed in support of Crl.M.P.No.539 of 2010 which he filed for recall of his wife (P.W1) and also the impugned order of the Family Court that the husband has filed the said petition to recall her for further cross- examination on the ground that he has changed his counsel. It may be noted that the affidavit of the husband is silent as to what are the specific aspects with reference to which P.W1 has to be further cross- examined on his behalf. The husband only stated that he has changed his counsel and his wife has to be cross-examined on certain important aspects without specifying them. The wife opposed the petition. The Family Court after considering the respective cases of the parties rejected the request of the husband stating that there is no ground to recall P.W1 and change of counsel cannot be a ground at all to permit further cross-examination of the wife/ a witness. 4. In this petition also the learned counsel for the husband could not point out as to what are the specific aspects with reference to which further cross-examination of P.W1 (wife) is necessary. As held by the Family Court mere change of counsel cannot be a ground to recall a witness. It may be noted that if recall of a witness for further cross-examination is permitted because of change of a counsel that would result in protraction of the proceedings by a party who can change his counsel every time and apply for recalling the witness. In my opinion the Family Court was right in dismissing the husband’s petition. 5. The impugned order, in my opinion, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and the husband is also unable to show that recall of P.W1 for further cross-examination is necessary to secure the ends of justice. 6. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 28th April 2011 CVRK