IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2244 of 2006 ARBIND KUMAR SINHA Versus SMT.SADHANA SINHA & ORS ----------- 5 4/7/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner-husband seems to be aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2006, whereby and whereunder, the court below has rejected the prayer for recall of the witness Sadhna Sinha, who is none else but wife of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of some order of the Supreme Court it became necessary for the petitioner to further cross- examine the aforementioned Sadhna Sinha, who is applicant in Cr. Misc. Case No. 18 of 2002 filed for grant of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure. From the order dated 18.8.2006 it is absolutely clear that the witness Sadhna Sinha was examined-in-chief on 28.10.2005 and on recall she was cross-examined by counsel for the petitioner on 4.8.2005 and the witness Sadhna Sinha was discharged after her complete cross examination. Thereafter, an application was filed for recall of the witness on the ground of some order of the Apex Court, but the counsel for the petitioner has not produced any order either before the court below or before this Court which could have justified further recall of witness Sadhna Sinha in between 4.8.2006 to 18.8.2006 and as such it has to be held the said application of recall was rightly rejected by the court below on 18.8.2006. 2 In fact, another application was again filed by the petitioner for recall of his wife which has been disposed of by the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court as to what was the necessity of the petitioner for further cross-examination by recalling the witness Sadhna Sinha and as to how can he reagitate the same issue which was rejected by the court below in its earlier order dated 18.8.2006 which had also become final between the parties. Consequently, there is no material irregularity, muchless, jurisdictional error in the impugned order. In view of the fact that the maintenance case is pending since the year 2002, this Court would direct the court below to dispose of finally the aforesaid maintenance case within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. There being no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed with the aforementioned observations and directions. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar