Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeal arises against the order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the Family Court in Execution Petition No. 30 of 2009, whereby direction has been given to the appellant-husband to pay amount of Rs. 6000/- per month over and above the maintenance amount of Rs. 6000/- per month, which has been ordered under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. The short facts of the case appears to be that the respondent-wife had preferred H.M.P. No. 222 of 1996 before the City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad and in the said petition, vide judgment and decree dated 30.4.1999, following order was passed:— “The opponent is hereby directed to allow the petitioner to reside or to stay with him and fulfill all his obligations including conjugal rights of his wife. No order as to costs. Decree withdrawn accordingly” 3. It is the case of the respondent-wife that in spite of the decree, the compliance is not made by the appellant-husband. Therefore, she filed Execution Petition No. 30 of 2009 before the Family Court under Order XXI Rule 32 read with Rule 33 of Civil Procedure Code. Initially, the Executing Court issued notice. In response thereto, the reply has been filed by appellant-husband contending inter alia that there was a setback suffered by his parents and it is his case that after the restitution of conjugal rights decree, there is no relationship of husband and wife. Therefore, he is entitled to divorce. Further aspect is that when it was put to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband by this Court as to whether he is desirous to comply with the decree of restitution of conjugal rights by allowing the respondent-wife to stay with him but the answer was in negative. It also deserves to be recorded that the Family Court has also recorded at Para 6 as under: “It shows that the judgment-debtor is a person who is not intended to obey the order of the decree of the Court and hence he should pay compensation for the same.” Ultimately, the Family Court has passed the above referred order dated 10.11.2009, which is impugned in the present appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. Qureshi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-husband and Mr. Gohil, learned counsel for the respondent-wife, for final disposal of appeal. 5. 4. We have heard Mr. Qureshi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-husband and Mr. Gohil, learned counsel for the respondent-wife, for final disposal of appeal. 5. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Court has no power to direct payment of any amount in addition to the order of maintenance in lieu of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights or by way of execution of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. It was submitted that the order is without jurisdiction, therefore, the same may be interfered with by this Court in this appeal. 6. Order XXI Rules 32 and 33 of C.P.C., which has already been reproduced by the learned Judge deserves to be reproduced also in the present order and the same reads as under:— “32. Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction.—(1)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 wilfully 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 attachment of his property, or by both. (2) Where the party against whom a decree for specific performance or for an injunction has been passed is a corporation, the decree may be enforced by the attachment of the property of the corporation or, with the leave of the Court, by the detention in the civil prison of the directors or other principal officers thereof, or by both attachment and detention. (3) Where any attachment under Sub-rule (1) or Sub-rule (2) has remained in force for [six months] if the judgment-debtor has not obeyed the decree and the decree-holder has applied to have the attached property sold, such property may be sold; and out of the proceeds the Court may award to the decree-holder such compensation as it thinks fit, and shall pay the balance (if any) to the judgment-debtor on his application. (4) Where the judgment-debtor has obeyed the decree and paid all costs of executing the same which he is bound to pay, or where, at the end of [six months] from the date of the attachment, no application to have the property sold has been made, or if made has been refused, the attachment shall cease. (5) Where a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction has not been obeyed, the Court may, in lieu of or in addition to all or any of the processes aforesaid, direct that the act required to be done may be done so far as practicable by the decree-holder or some other person appointed by the Court, at the cost of the judgment-debtor, and upon the act being done the expenses incurred may be ascertained in such manner as the Court may direct and may be recovered as if they were included in the decree. 33. Discretion of Court in executing decrees for restitution of conjugal rights.— (1) Notwithstanding anything in Rule 32, the Court, either at the time of passing a decree [against a husband] for the restitution of conjugal rights or at any time afterwards, may order that the decree [shall be executed in the manner provided in this rule]. (2) Where the Court has made an order under Sub-rule (1), it may order that, in the event of the decree not being obeyed within such period as may be fixed in this behalf, the judgment-debtor shall make to the decree-holder such periodical payment as may be just, and, if it thinks fit, require that the judgment-debtor shall, to its satisfaction, secure to the decree-holder such periodical payments. (3) The Court may from time to time vary or modify any order made under Sub-rule (2) for the periodical payment of money, either by altering the times of payment or by increasing or diminishing the amount, or may temporarily suspend the same as to the whole or any part of the money so ordered to be paid, and again review the same, either wholly or in part as it may think just. (4) Any money ordered to be paid under this Rule may be recovered as though it were payable under a decree for the payment of money.” However the Order XXI Rule 33 is an additional provision made under Civil Procedure Code for discretion of the Court in execution of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The language of Sub-rule (1)of Rule 33 speaks for an additional measure and the said aspect is apparent from the language used ‘Notwithstanding anything in Rule 32’. Therefore, the additional discretion provided with the Executing Court under Rule 33 is not by way of a substitution of the mode provided for execution under Rule 32 of Order XXI but is in addition of such mode provided under Rule 32, therefore, could be termed as an additional discretion vested by Order XXI Rule 33 with the Executing Court. As per Order XXI (1) Rule 33, Sub-rule (1) provides for passing of an order by way of execution of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, meaning thereby, the Court may exercise discretion for fixing up of the time schedule or the mode and the manner in which decree of restitution of conjugal rights may be obeyed by the parties to the proceedings, when it is passed against the husband. Sub-rule 2 provides that in the event of decree not being obeyed within the said period as fixed by the Court, the judgment debtor shall make to the decree holder such periodical payment as may be just and proper by the Court for satisfaction of the decree. Sub-rule 3 provides for the modification and alteration of the order, if circumstances so demand. Sub-Rule 4 provides for recovery of the money so ordered to be paid as the decree for the payment of money. Therefore, it is apparent that in a case where the decree for restitution of conjugal rights is to be executed, the Court has power to attach the property of the person against whom the decree of restitution of conjugal rights has been passed as per Sub-rule 32 of Order XXI. Further if it is a decree passed against the husband, under Rule 33 of Order XXI, the aforesaid, additional mode has been provided by vesting discretion to the Court executing the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. 7. Further if it is a decree passed against the husband, under Rule 33 of Order XXI, the aforesaid, additional mode has been provided by vesting discretion to the Court executing the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. 7. The examination of the facts of the present case shows that it is not a case where the husband wanted to obey decree for restitution of conjugal rights and the Court did not give any opportunity and the Court has straightaway passed the order but is a matter where the opportunity was given but the stand of the husband is that he would be entitled for the decree of divorce, meaning thereby, there is no desire to obey the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The aforesaid is coupled with the additional circumstances that this Court initially on judicial side had referred the matter to the Lok Adalat and the former Judge of this Court, as per the report produced by the office, had made an attempt but the settlement was not possible. Therefore, the matter is again sent to this Court on judicial side. As observed earlier, by way of providing an additional opportunity to the appellant-husband, if he is desirous to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the query was put by the Court but the answer is in negative. 8. Under these circumstances, we find that as the appellant-husband, is not desirous to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the executing Court has rightly exercised the discretion under Order XXI Rule 33 of C.P.C for periodical payment of Rs. 6000/- per month to the respondent-wife in addition to the amount of maintenance. It cannot be said that the order is without jurisdiction as sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant. As such, it appears to us that the executing Court was well within its jurisdiction to exercise the discretion to pass the order. Hence, the said contention is rejected. 9. No other contention is raised. 10. Appeal is merit less. Hence dismissed with cost of Rs. 5000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent-wife.