(1.) 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 choses 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 party's grievance would be to approach trie same court at the earliest and point out what facts have wrongly gone into the order. In that case the lower court also will be in a better position to clarify the factual position and thus indiscrete attempts to malign the court will get minimised.
(3.) We however feel that in view of the allegation made against the Presiding Officer of the Family Court it would only be appropriate that the appellant should ventilate her grievnce by moving an application before the same court with details as to how she had been prejudiced by the order of the court. Thus the appellant may do so by moving an appropriate application within a period of ten days if such an application is moved the same will be disposed of by the Family Court first and in the meantime it will not enforce the order dated 13-11-1991 for handing over custody of the child to the husband.