ORDER : P. Devadass, J. 1. This revision is by the ex-husband of the respondent as against attachment of his salary by the Execution Court. The marital bondage between the revision petitioner and the respondent has been severed by a Court Order. The decree of divorce was passed ex parte. The revision petitioner filed an application to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree of divorce. The Trial Court, by a detailed order, dismissed the delay condonation petition. As against the said order no appeal or revision was preferred. So, it has attained finality. 2. Subsequently, the respondent filed I.A. No. 160 of 2008 for fixing permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- in full quit. The said I.A., was allowed ex parte on 18.11.2011. Subsequently, the respondent filed E.P. No. 2 of 2014 for arrest of her ex-husband. The Executing Court, on 13.05.2015, ordered attachment of his salary to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- per month. 3. Aggrieved, the ex-husband has preferred this revision. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner is receiving a salary of Rs. 75,000/- per month only. When Rs. 25,000/- is cut, it will be very difficult for his livelihood. So, he seeks concession. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent narrated certain past events. According to him, it is bitter. He was countered by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. These are all outside the scope of this revision petition. 6. When we read the impugned order, the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai, noted that the revision petitioner is in receipt of salary of Rs. 73,000/- per month. On the basis of his no objection, the learned Judge ordered attachment of his salary to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- per month. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner had not given no objection and there was no endorsement to that effect, however, the Family Court passed such an order. 8. A statement on fact, namely, the revision petitioner has 'no objection to attach the salary not less than Rs. 25,000/-' embodied in the judicial order. It is on the basis of the statement made at the Bar before a Judicial Officer. 9. Whether really such a statement has been made before the Judicial Officer could be raised before another forum. A statement on fact, namely, the revision petitioner has 'no objection to attach the salary not less than Rs. 25,000/-' embodied in the judicial order. It is on the basis of the statement made at the Bar before a Judicial Officer. 9. Whether really such a statement has been made before the Judicial Officer could be raised before another forum. If such a practice is allowed, then that will unsettle judicial orders. Courts passes orders based on the words of the learned counsel at the Bar. They are the Officers of the Court. The statement of the lawyers before the Court has much weight. If one, who wants to contradict the statement stated to have been made before a Court, the remedy is not making a contra statement before another forum. In such circumstances, he has to go to the very same Court by way of appropriate petition and to convince the Judge that he has not made such a statement (See State of Maharashtra v. R.S. Nayak and another [ AIR 1982 SC 1249 ]). 10. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 incorporates certain presumptions. Section 114 of the Evidence Act contains many presumptions. One of the presumption is that judicial and official acts are presumed to be regularly performed (See Section 114(e), Evidence Act). What is noted in Court's minutes paper, Court diary and docket sheet based on the happenings before the Court are presumed to be regularly performed. However, it is not a conclusive proof. It is rebuttable. That can be done only by a proper mode. Therefore, we cannot now allow the petitioner to contradict the statement incorporated by the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai, in the impugned order. 11. The impugned order is a consent order. But, even a consent order can be modified or diluted when the other side agrees. Then, the modified order will become a consent order. But, in this case, the revision petitioner is solo, while his ex-wife and children are living together. Now, an attempt has been made to modify the impugned order. He wants concession, in other words, reduction of the amount. 12. It is pertinent to note that already there is huge arrears running to several lakhs. After all, he is going to pay to meet the expenses of his children, of course, also to his wife in pursuance of the permanent alimony order. He wants concession, in other words, reduction of the amount. 12. It is pertinent to note that already there is huge arrears running to several lakhs. After all, he is going to pay to meet the expenses of his children, of course, also to his wife in pursuance of the permanent alimony order. It is a mandate of law. He is also not willing to pay anything towards the huge arrears of maintenance. No acceptable reason has been demonstrated to interfere nor dilute the impugned order or disturb the contents of the Order. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order of attachment of salary need not be disturbed. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.