ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. Application for oral hearing is allowed. 3. The review petitioner filed a petition under section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act 45 of 2005 before the Court of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed the following order : "(i) Permitting the petitioner to share the house at Door No.347, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai as per Section 19 of the D.V. Act until the respondent make alternative arrangement to provide a permanent residence as that of the house now occupied. (ii) To pay Rs. 2 crores as maintenance as per section 20 the D.V. Act. (iii) To pay Rs. 50 lakhs as compensation for deserting the petitioner for 12 years, Rs. 50 lakhs for living in extra marital life, Rs. 50 lakhs for leaving the petitioner to face the court cases, Rs. 50 lakhs to force to take a job in NDTV, Rs. 50 lakhs for mental torture and agony by openly living with foreign women, Rs. 50 lakhs for not paying rent to the shared household and in total 3 crores as per section 22 of the D.V. Act." 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed by the respondent-husband before the Court of Sessions at Chennai. The IV Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 30.10.2014, directed the respondent to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) per month towards maintenance from the date of filing the petition under D.V. Act, i.e. 06.1.2009. 5. There was a further direction to the respondent to pay Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) per month in lieu of residential accommodation. In all, the respondent had to pay Rs. 1.75 lakh per month to the petitioner from 6.1.2009 onward. 6. The High Court vide order dated 02.12.2016 affirmed the order of the Sessions Court. The special leave petition filed by the respondent against the order of the High Court was dismissed on 26.10.2017 and six months' time was granted to him to comply with the directions for payment of maintenance on submission of usual undertaking. 7. The petitioner filed a contempt petition being aggrieved by the non-compliance of the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2017. 7. The petitioner filed a contempt petition being aggrieved by the non-compliance of the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2017. On behalf of the respondent, a submission was made in the Contempt Petition that an undertaking was not given as directed by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2017 and hence, the contempt petition was not maintainable. This Court did not entertain the contempt petition but directed the petitioner to file a petition for review of the order dated 26.10.2017. 8. The present review petition has been filed seeking modification of order dated 26.10.2017 passed by this Court in SLP(Crl.) No.4253 of 2017. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 10. Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent with his usual vehemence made an effort to convince us that this matter is capable of being settled by negotiations, that the respondent is in no position to make the payment of the arrears of maintenance as directed by the courts below and that this Court should not entertain the instant review petition in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. In short, he submits that the Petitioner has to resort to exemption proceedings to have the order implemented. 11. Having considered the submission made by Mr. Basant, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, we are of the opinion that the direction that was issued by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2017 while dismissing the SLP(Crl.) No.4253 of 2017, cannot be ignored. The attempt of the respondent in delaying the compliance of the orders passed by the courts below as well as this Court by submitting that the petitioner has to resort to execution of the order passed by the court below, cannot be accepted. 12. We repeatedly asked Mr. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent about the time that the respondent requires to make the payment of arrears of maintenance which would amount to Rs. 2,06,00,000/- (Rupees two crore and six lakh only) as on date. He submitted that he has instructions to the effect that the respondent shall pay Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs) to show his bona fides, but is in no position to pay the remaining amount. 13. Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that a residential property in Chennai has been sold by the respondent for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs) to show his bona fides, but is in no position to pay the remaining amount. 13. Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that a residential property in Chennai has been sold by the respondent for Rs. 23 crores (Rs. Twenty Three Crores) and he has received Rs. 10 crores (Rs. Ten Crores) as part payment on 05.7.2017. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent has to clear the arrears of maintenance and continue to pay the maintenance as directed by the courts below and upheld by this Court. The respondent is granted one year's time from today to clear the arrears of the maintenance. He shall deposit 1 /4th of the amount of arrears due till date in the trial court within a period of three months from today. The respondent shall continue to pay the maintenance of Rs. 1.75 lakhs (Rs. One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand) by the 10th day of every month. 15. We direct the respondent to surrender his passport in the concerned trial court forthwith. He is at liberty to make an appropriate application for return of the said passport on completion of payment of the arrears of maintenance. 16. With the aforesaid directions, the review petition is disposed of.