( 1 ) SRI A. K. Goyal had filed authority on behalf of respondents, it may be taken on record.

( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. The main contention of the learned counsel for, the appellant is that the order dated, 13-11-1991, which apparently is a consent order, was obtained under duress and coercion by the Presiding Officer of the Family court. It is admitted that the appellant has not made any application in the court below for recall of the order on the ground that the same had been obtained under coercion. This Court cannot enter into an inquiry as to under what circumstances the order had been passed. Judicial propriety also dictates that the appellate court must accept as correct what the lower court records in its orders regarding facts which transpire before it. It will be setting a very unhealthy precedent if the Presiding Officer of the lower court were to be put in the dock, so to say merely because a party chooses to make certain allegations against his conduct. The Supreme Court has also deprecated this practice and has suggested that the best way to vindicate the partys grievance would be to approach the same court at the earliest and