JUDGMENT 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 20/11/2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.3, Nagpur by which order the application for interim maintenance came to be allowed and the petitioner/husband was directed to pay Rs.8,000/- per month as interim maintenance i.e. Rs.5,000/- per month towards the wife and Rs.3,000/- per month towards the son. The petitioner/husband was also directed to pay Rs. 1,200/- per trip from Nanded to Nagpur for herself and escort on production of tickets and the petitioner/husband was also directed to pay interim litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent/wife. 3. The order ex facie discloses that the Trial Court has considered the six entries appearing in the bank statement of Kotak Mahindra Bank in respect of the account of the petitioner, which entries are in respect of the deposits made by the petitioner/husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this court has explained the six entries. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is on account of refund of payment received by the petitioner/husband in respect of Flat which he had booked, the amount of Rs.4,01,264.10 is the withdrawal at the prematurity stage of a term deposit. The amount of Rs.64,000/- and Rs.21,000/- are on account of the amount received by virtue of the mediclaim and the amount of Rs.46,00/- and Rs.56,000/- are the amounts which the petitioner/husband has allegedly raised from his friends. The aforesaid explanation was not before the Family Court and resultantly, the Family Court arrived at a conclusion that the said amount might have been deposited on account of some transactions. In my view, therefore, the impugned order dated 20/11/2011 is required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the Family Court for a de novo consideration on the anvil of the said explanation. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent/wife states that in spite of notice given in the Trial Court, the petitioner/husband did not produce the documents in question in respect of which the notice was given and in fact, the petitioner/husband refused to produce the said document. The learned counsel for the respondent/wife, therefore, contends that since the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court, the petitioner/husband may be directed to produce the said document. The learned counsel for the respondent/wife, therefore, contends that since the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court, the petitioner/husband may be directed to produce the said document. In my view, it would be open for the respondent/wife to file an appropriate application before the Family Court in that regard. If such an application is filed, the same would be considered by the Family Court in accordance with law. 5. For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Family Court for a de novo consideration of the application for interim maintenance. On such remand, the Family Court is directed to afford an opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence in support of their respective cases. The Family Court to hear and decide the interim application within a period ofthree months from date. Till such time as the application is decided, the petitioner/husband to deposit an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month in the Family Court till the family Court decides the matter, this is as and by way of pro tem arrangement for the maintenance of the wife and son. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs. Ordered Accordingly.