JUDGMENT : (C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.) The wife of a senior IAS Officer is knocking the doors of this Court seeking implementation of an order for maintenance, which was passed as early as on 18.09.2019, vide Ext.P1. Barring a sum of Rs.10 lakh- which was directed to be paid, as a pre-condition for an interim order- no amount, whatsoever, has been paid, is the contention espoused by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. 2. Heard Sri.S.Sreekumar the learned Senior counsel, duly instructed by Advocate Aneesh James for the petitioner; and Sri.Alex K.John, the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records. 3. The following facts emerge from the submissions made by both sides. The marital tie between the petitioner and the respondent is estranged, and a divorce petition is pending. Ext.P1-Order was passed as early as on 18.09.2019, directing grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. Appeals were carried by both the wife and the husband before the District and Sessions Court. Ext.P1-Order was modified and the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs.50,000/-per month, vide Ext.P2. Revision was filed before this Court, in which Ext.P3 order dated 01.07.2024 was passed, reducing the maintenance amount to Rs.40,000/- per month. In the meantime, the petitioner/wife filed Ext.P4 application seeking implementation of Ext.P2 Order, at which point of time, the arrears of maintenance was about Rs.34 Lakhs. By virtue of Ext.P5 Order, the High Court directed the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs, as a pre-condition for stay of Ext.P2 Order. Ext.P5 is dated 27.09.2023. However, the said Order was not complied with, and the amount directed was not deposited. Consequently, by virtue of Ext.P6 dated 30.11.2023, the High Court vacated the interim stay, which enabled the Trial Court to proceed with Ext.P4 application for execution. Exts.P5 and P6 Orders were challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court by the respondent/husband by filing an SLP [(Criminal) Diary No.45176/2023]. By virtue of Ext.P11 Order, the Honourable Supreme Court granted four weeks’ time to deposit the sum of Rs.10 Lakhs, which also was not complied with by the respondent/husband. A contempt petition was moved before the Honourable Supreme Court by the petitioner/wife, pursuant to which, the said amount of Rs.10 Lakhs was deposited, pertinently after receipt of notice in the contempt petition. 4. A contempt petition was moved before the Honourable Supreme Court by the petitioner/wife, pursuant to which, the said amount of Rs.10 Lakhs was deposited, pertinently after receipt of notice in the contempt petition. 4. It is the further contention of the learned Senior counsel that even when an Order of attachment was holding sway, amounts in the post office account were withdrawn by the respondent/husband. 5. The dismissal of the S.L.P. by the Supreme Court did not disillusion the respondent/husband. Undeterred, he filed an application under Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short P.W.D.V. Act) to modify the Order of maintenance, finalized as per Ext.P3. The said application was dismissed vide Ext.P12 Order, dated 26.03.2024. The finding in Ext.P12 is that the application under Section 25(2) is only to protract the execution of the maintenance order against the respondent/husband. Challenging Ext.P12 Order of dismissal, an appeal was carried before the Sessions Court, which was also dismissed vide Ext.P13 Judgment, dated 18.07.2024. 6. In Ext.P4-application for implementation of the order of maintenance, a petition was filed, vide Ext.P19, seeking to attach the salary of the respondent/husband. While so, the respondent/husband filed yet another application under Section 25(2), again seeking modification of the order of maintenance. 7. The learned Senior Counsel would clarify that, for the self-same relief, yet another application was filed, produced at Ext.P21. Now, the contention of the respondent/husband is that the execution petition for implementation of the maintenance order cannot proceed, until disposal of Ext.P21. How callous, casual and indifferent the petitioner is decipherable from the fact that Ext.P23 application- for the same relief sought for in Ext.P21, that is to say, modification of Ext.P3 maintenance order- was also filed by him. It appears that, the contention of the respondent has weighed with the learned Magistrate inasmuch as, Ext.P4-application, as also, Ext.P19 therein are being adjourned by the learned Magistrate on not less than six occasions. The learned Senior Counsel would seek a direction to dispose of Exts.P4 and P19 at the earliest, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 8. Refuting the above submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent/husband would submit that he is not standing in the way of considering Ext.P4, or for that matter, Ext.P19; however, the same can be done only after considering and passing orders in Exts.P21 and P23. 8. Refuting the above submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent/husband would submit that he is not standing in the way of considering Ext.P4, or for that matter, Ext.P19; however, the same can be done only after considering and passing orders in Exts.P21 and P23. As regards Ext.P21, learned counsel would, now, submit that the said application is going to be not pressed. 9. Having heard the counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds no merit, whatsoever, in the contention urged by the learned counsel for the respondent/husband. As rightly found by the learned Magistrate in Ext.P12, which was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in Ext.P13, the attempt is nothing, but a desperate and deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent/husband to procrastinate the proceedings, with an eye fixed on depriving the petitioner/wife, even from her basic right to receive maintenance. This Court notice that by virtue of Ext.P12, the application of the respondent/husband seeking modification under Section 25(2) was dismissed, which was confirmed in appeal, vide Ext.P13-Judgment. No further proceedings was carried challenging Ext.P13 and it became final. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge in Ext.P13, is that there is no change of circumstance warranting interference under Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act. If that be so, yet another petition for the self-same relief, again seeking a modification under Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, is nothing but an abuse of process of the court. This Court is constrained to observe that the driving motive behind Exts.P21 and P23 is ulterior and there is an utter lack of bonafides on the part of the respondent/husband. In cases where there is gross absence of bonafides and contains apparent malafides - with an eye fixed on procrastinating the legitimate due to the adversary party, which right having been crystalised after long series of litigation - should be nipped at the bud. 10. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi, to consider and pass orders in Ext.P19 application filed in Ext.P4 petition at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The learned Magistrate may consider Ext.P23 also and pass orders therein. The learned Magistrate may consider Ext.P23 also and pass orders therein. However, that exercise cannot stand in the way of considering Ext.P19 within the time stipulated above. It is well and good if the learned Magistrate can consider and pass orders in Exts.P23/P21 and Ext.P19 within the time stipulated above. There will be a further direction to consider and pass orders in Ext.P4 as well within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. This OP(Crl.) is allowed as indicated above.