ORDER :

(B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J.)

Heard Sri Sri Atchyut, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and Sri Bolla Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This revision-petition is directed against the Order, dated 18.12.2015 in E.P.No.44 of 2015 in O.P.No.42 of 2001 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada. The execution petition was filed by the revision-petitioner/wife for ‘Restoration of Conjugal Rights’ under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’). The execution petition was ‘Dismissed’ by the execution Court.

3. The revision-petitioner filed the execution petition with a prayer to direct the respondent/husband to restore conjugal rights.

4. The respondent/husband opposed the execution application that it is not maintainable in law.

5. The learned Trial Judge ‘Dismissed’ the execution petition on the ground that under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, where a party against whom the decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced by attachment of the property. but the revision-petitioner/wife did not seek attachment of any property of the respondent.

6. In the light of above contention, the point that would arise for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is as under:

“Whether the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada committed any material irregularity in its Order, dated 18.12.2015 in E.P.No.44 of 2015 in O.P.No.42 of 2001?”

7. POINT: -

Order XXI Rule 32 CPC deals with ‘Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction’. Clause 1 of Order XXI Rule 32 CPC is as under:

“Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both.

8. In the case on hand, the revision-petitioner/wife filed the execution petition basing on the Order and decree in C.M.A.No.3940 of 2003, dated 20.08.2014 rendered by this Court. This Court under the Order in C.M.A.No.3940 of 2003, allowed the O.P.No.42 of 2001 filed by the revision-petitioner/wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, granting the relief of Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

9. The revision-petitioner/wife subsequently filed the impugned execution petition before the Trial Court in E.P.No.44 of 2015 in O.P.No.42 of 2001 under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. The affidavit filed by the revision-petitioner/wife before the Trial Court would show that she prayed the Court to direct the respondent/husband to restore the conjugal rights. The execution petition at column No.12, the relief is as under:

“The decree-holder therefore prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to peruse the Decree passed by this Hon’ble Court and the decree in C.M.A.No.3940 of 2003 and the affidavit and issued Notice to the J.Dr by directing him to restore the conjugal rights.”

10. Therefore, the revision-petitioner simply prayed the Trial Court to direct the respondent/husband to restore the conjugal rights, without seeking attachment of the property of the husband.

11. Nowhere, in the affidavit or in the execution petition it is found, that the revi