JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State. 2. The appearance has been tendered on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the name of the learned counsel has also been reflected in the cause-list, however on repeated calls nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party no. 2. On 12.08.2022, the same was the position on that date and with a view to provide one more opportunity, the matter was adjourned for today and today also on repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 3. In view of absence of opposite party no. 2, the matter is being heard. 4. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 09.07.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ramgarh in Maintenance Case No. 171 of 2014, whereby, the learned court has been pleased to reject the recall application of the petitioner as well as his application for conducting DNA/paternity Test for establishing identity of the son of opposite party no. 2, pending in the court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ramgarh. The further prayer is made for direction to the learned court to accept the written explanation/show-cause of the petitioner in response to the maintenance claim application. The prayer is also made for direction to the learned court to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to produce his defence by examining witnesses for discrediting and controverting the false claim of opposite party no. 2. 5. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a married man and he is an employee of M/s. Central Coalfields Limited and has been residing permanently at Ramgarh with his family. He further submits that the petitioner was however, often posted at various locations by his employer. He submits that an application was filed in the year 2014 purportedly under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by opposite party no. 2 claiming maintenance from the petitioner falsely on the ground that she is the wife of the petitioner, but their marriage was allegedly solemnized in the year 1970 when she was 2-3 years old and the petitioner was 5-6 years old. The opposite party no. 2 has also alleged that a son was born out of this wedlock. 2 claiming maintenance from the petitioner falsely on the ground that she is the wife of the petitioner, but their marriage was allegedly solemnized in the year 1970 when she was 2-3 years old and the petitioner was 5-6 years old. The opposite party no. 2 has also alleged that a son was born out of this wedlock. He further submits that the case was being conducted by the authorised counsel by the petitioner and he was assured that proper steps were being taken by his counsel. When he came to know that his counsel was not taking proper steps and the petitioner's defence was struck off and he has not been able to file reply to the application, the counsel was changed by the petitioner. He further submits that thereafter petitioner filed a recall application on 22.01.2020 for recalling the ex-parte order dated 18.08.2016. He also submits that the petitioner had lost his opportunity to submit his defence by filing show-cause and has also been deprived of the opportunity to adduce evidence. He further submits that the learned court has rejected the said petition on the ground that the petition was filed at a very belated stage and the DNA test cannot be ordered as the petitioner is not even aware of the name of the person whose test is sought in the petition. He further submits that the petitioner entered his appearance in the learned court, however he did not file show-cause despite sufficient opportunities and as such the case was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 18.08.2016 by the then Principal Judge, Family Court, Ramgarh and thereafter the learned court proceeded to examine the opposite party no. 2 on the next date i.e. 21.09.2016 and she was discharged after putting some questions to her and subsequently more witnesses were examined. The learned court vide order dated 09.07.2021 has noted that the case was running for argument and thereafter at a very belated stage, the petition for recall was filed by the petitioner and on this ground, the petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 09.07.2021. 6. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has given proper reason for deciding the petition filed by the petitioner. She further submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and this Court may not entertain this petition. 7. 6. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has given proper reason for deciding the petition filed by the petitioner. She further submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and this Court may not entertain this petition. 7. In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the materials on the record. It transpires that it has been alleged that at the age of 2-3 years, opposite party no. 2 has got marriage with the petitioner, who was 5-6 years at that time. It has also been disclosed that opposite party no. 2 is not getting maintenance since 1985, whereas, the maintenance case has been filed in the year 2014. This aspect of the matter is required to be considered before passing final order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was under impression that the lawyer is taking proper steps, however after change of the lawyer, it was transpired to the petitioner that proper steps have not been taken and his defence was struck off vide order dated 18.08.2016. In light of this background, the petitioner filed a petition for recall of the order to allow him to lead his defence. It is trite that the credibility of witnesses whether in a civil or criminal case can be tested only when the testimony is put through the fire of cross-examination. The denial of an opportunity to do so will result in a serious miscarriage of justice in the present case keeping in view the serious consequences that will follow any such denial. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Sanjeeva Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 7 SCC 56 . Paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the said judgment are quoted herein-below: “18. Denial of an opportunity to recall the witnesses for cross-examination would amount to condemning the appellant without giving him the opportunity to challenge the correctness of the version and the credibility of the witnesses. It is trite that the credibility of witnesses whether in a civil or criminal case can be tested only when the testimony is put through the fire of cross-examination. It is trite that the credibility of witnesses whether in a civil or criminal case can be tested only when the testimony is put through the fire of cross-examination. Denial of an opportunity to do so will result in a serious miscarriage of justice in the present case keeping in view the serious consequences that will follow any such denial. 19. The nature and extent of the power vested in the courts under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall witnesses was examined by this Court in Hanuman Ram v. State of Rajasthan. This Court held that the object underlying Section 311 was to prevent failure of justice on account of a mistake of either party to bring on record valuable evidence or leaving an ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses. This Court observed: “7............“26......This is a supplementary provision enabling, and in certain circumstances imposing on the court the duty of examining a material witness who would not be otherwise brought before it. It is couched in the widest possible terms and calls for no limitation, either with regard to the stage at which the powers of the court should be exercised, or with regard to the manner in which it should be exercised. It is not only the prerogative but also the plain duty of a court to examine such of those witnesses as it considers absolutely necessary for doing justice between the State and the subject. There is a duty cast upon the court to arrive at the truth by all lawful means and one of such means is the examination of witnesses of its own accord when for certain obvious reasons either party is not prepared to call witnesses who are known to be in a position to speak important relevant facts. 27. The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. 27. The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the court to summon a witness under the section merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and empowers the Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings, trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant expression that occurs is “at any stage of inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code.” It is, however, to be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind.” (Emphasis supplied) 20. Grant of fairest opportunity to the accused to prove his innocence is the object of every fair trial, observed this Court in Hoffman Andreas vs. Inspector of Customs. The following passage is in this regard apposite: “6............In such circumstances, if the new counsel thought to have the material witnesses further examined the court could adopt latitude and a liberal view in the interest of justice, particularly when the court has unbridled powers in the matter as enshrined in Section 311 of the Code. After all the trial is basically for the prisoners and courts should afford the opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible.” (Emphasis supplied) 21. The extent and the scope of the power of the Court to recall witnesses was examined by this Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India wherein this Court observed: “27. After all the trial is basically for the prisoners and courts should afford the opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible.” (Emphasis supplied) 21. The extent and the scope of the power of the Court to recall witnesses was examined by this Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India wherein this Court observed: “27. The principle of law that emerges from the views expressed by this Court in the above decisions is that the criminal court has ample power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any such person even if the evidence on both sides is closed and the jurisdiction of the court must obviously be dictated by exigency of the situation, and fair play and good sense appear to be the only safe guides and that only the requirements of justice command and examination of any person which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.” (Emphasis supplied) 22. Discovery of the truth is the essential purpose of any trial or enquiry, observed a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira. A timely reminder of that solemn duty was given in the following words: “35. What people expect is that the court should discharge its obligation to find out where in fact the truth lies. Right from inception of the judicial system it has been accepted that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying the existence of the courts of justice.” 8. In the criminal case, the discovery of the truth is the essential purpose of any trial or enquiry. Section 126 Cr.P.C. speaks that every witness shall be examined in presence of person against whom the order is sought to be passed. 9. In the result, the order dated 09.07.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ramgarh in Maintenance Case No. 171 of 2014 is, hereby, quashed. The concerned court shall recall the said order and opportunity of defence will be provided to the petitioner. 10. So far as the DNA test is concerned, this Court is not inclined to pass any positive order and it is open to the petitioner to file appropriate petition in appropriate proceeding. 11. Mr. The concerned court shall recall the said order and opportunity of defence will be provided to the petitioner. 10. So far as the DNA test is concerned, this Court is not inclined to pass any positive order and it is open to the petitioner to file appropriate petition in appropriate proceeding. 11. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction submits at bar that the petitioner will not delay the matter and he will lead his defence on day to day basis. 12. The trial court shall endeavour to conclude the examination of the witnesses by way of defence expeditiously and without unnecessary delay. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as a cost to opposite party no. 2 on the first date of appearance in the trial court. 13. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. 14. Interim order dated 03.09.2021 stands vacated.