S. No. 104 Suppli. list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM/5400/2025 IN CM(M)/359/2025 Shahid Mehboob Darzi …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Gowhar Majid Dalal, Adv. Vs Saba Nazir ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Abu Owais, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 27.08.2025 1. In the instant petition, petitioner herein has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court enshrined in Article 227 of the Constitution seeking setting aside of the order dated 10th April, 2025 passed by the Court of Judge Small causes Srinagar in case titled “Saba Nazir vs. Shahid Mehboob Darzi and Ors” and order dated 07th July, 2025 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar, whereby the order passed by Judge Small causes Srinagar dated 10th April, 2025 has been upheld. 2. The order dated 10-04-2025 supra pertains to the grant of maintenance and rentals amounting to Rs. 10,000/- per month granted in favour of the respondent herein and payable by the petitioner herein, whereas order dated 07-07-2025, upheld the said order in an appeal filed against the same by the petitioner herein. 3. The petitioner herein, has challenged herein both the orders on the premise that the same have been passed in arbitrary exercise of judicial power as also against the rule of law, inasmuch as, without any justifiable reason and upon wrongful observations. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also counsel for the caveator. 4. In so far as exercises of supervisory jurisdiction enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution is concerned, the exercise thereof is regulated and is to be exercised within the parameters set out by the Apex Court in series of judgments including in case titled as “Shalini Shyam Shetty vs Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010(8) SCC 329”, wherein it is the consistent view of the Apex Court that the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is that this Court while exercising same does not act as a court of appeal to correct mere errors of fact and law. Thus, in this view of the matter this Court is not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as the concurrent nature of orders passed by the courts below, which seemingly are well reasoned. 5. Accordingly, the petition fails and is, as such, dismissed. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 27.08.2025 Sarvar