:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1468 OF 2002 Dattatraya Gabaji @ Karbhari ... Petitioner versus The State and others ... Respondents ... Mr.S.U. Dhakephalkar, for the Petitioner. Mr.Harshad Palve, for the Respondent No.1. Mr.K.V. Saste, A.P.P., for the Respondent State. ... CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. 20th April 2005 P.C.: . The order which is impugned in this petition has rejected the revision application on the reasoning that the order which the Petitioner was challenging was an interlocutory order, namely, issuance of notice to the Petitioner on Recovery Application No. 18/2001 for which reason it was not maintainable. Counsel for the :2: Petitioner, however, contends that the Petitioner was not only challenging the order issuing notice to the Petitioner, but also the principal order passed by the lower Court awarding maintenance in favour of the Respondent in Miscellaneous Application No. 75 of 1999 and relief to that effect was expressly prayed in para 15.B of the revision application filed before the Sessions Court. . This submission, however, overlooks that the Court below has considered only the arguments as were canvassed before it. At least, from the observations in the order impugned in this petition, it is not possible to take the view that the Petitioner had canvassed before the Sessions Court an argument questioning the justness of the order of maintenance passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 75 of 1999. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, contends that during the course of arguments, Petitioner’s Counsel had argued before the Sessions Court questioning the correctness of the order passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 75 of 1999. This grievance can be agitated by the Petitioner :3: only before the Sessions Court in view of the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, reported in A.I.R. 1982 S.C.1249. . Insofar as the order issuing notice against the Petitioner on Recovery Application No. 82 of 2001 is concerned, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Sessions Court that the same is an interlocutory order and not amenable to revisional powers. . This petition is, therefore, disposed of in the above terms. It is, however, made clear that this order may not be construed as an expression of opinion that it was open to the Petitioner to challenge the order in Miscellaneous Application No. 75 of 1999 at this distance of time or otherwise. All questions in relation to challenge to that order are left open. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)