JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. One of the grievance made against the impugned order dated 17th March 1998 of the District Judge Sawaimadhopur is that before passing this order the opportunity of hearing to explain the case should have been given to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent though not conceded, but submitted that even if the opportunity of hearing is not given, it will not serve any purpose as the petitioner has not complied with the decree of the restitution of conjugal rights passed in favour of the respondent. 3. In a case where a decree passed for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the wife is not complied with by the husband whether he can be sent to civil imprisonment is a point which needs consideration before the executing court orders for warrant of civil imprisonment to the judgment-debtor. Here the petitioner is to be given an opportunity of hearing. 4. The order impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and in case it is allowed to stand, it will certainly occasion a failure of justice or will cause irreparable injury to the petitioner. 5. Only on this ground this revision application succeeds and same is allowed. The order dated 17th March 1998 of the court below is quashed and set aside and the court below is directed to consider the matter afresh and decide the same in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner or his counsel where he engaged an advocate.Revision allowed. *******