Judgment RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Family Court, Nagpur on 10.11.2011 partly allowing an application filed by the respondent no.1 and directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/-per month to the respondent no.1 as interim maintenance with effect from 14.12.2011. 3. The respondent no.1 had filed a petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. An application for grant of interim maintenance was also filed by the respondent no.1. It was the case of the respondent no.1 that she was at the mercy of her parents and the petitioner was working in Saint Jose, United States of America and had a yearly income of Rs.43,12,000/-. According to the respondent no.1, the monthly income of the petitioner was Rs.3,50,000/-and the respondent no.1 was entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-per month towards interim maintenance. The respondent no.1 pleaded that the father of the petitioner was drawing a monthly pension of Rs.20,000/-and since the brother of the petitioner was earning an amount of Rs.40,000/-per month, none of them were dependent on him. The application filed by the respondent no.1 was strongly opposed by the petitioner. It was the case of the petitioner that he was earning an amount of 2400 USD for a fortnight. His monthly income was 4800 USD and out of his earnings he was required to pay 1400 USD towards the rent of the flat. The petitioner pleaded that he was required to pay USD 350 towards Electricity Bill, USD 70 for the Internet Bill, USD 100 towards Phone Bill, USD 400 towards Petrol Expenses, USD 200 towards Car Maintenance, USD 500 towards Grocery, USD 250 towards Car Loans Installments, USD 300 towards Health Insurance, USD 100 towards Car Insurance, USD 100 towards House Insurance, USD 500 towards Miscellaneous expenses. The petitioner pleaded that he was required to spend almost his entire salary on his livelihood and he could save only USD 100 in a month. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent no.1 could not have sought the monthly maintenance by converting the US Dollars into Indian Rupees. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 was well educated and had secured degree in B.E. Computer Science from a recognized institute. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent no.1 could not have sought the monthly maintenance by converting the US Dollars into Indian Rupees. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 was well educated and had secured degree in B.E. Computer Science from a recognized institute. It was stated in the reply that the respondent no.1 was earning a handsome salary by serving in Millennium Company in Mumbai prior to her marriage. The petitioner sought for the dismissal of the application for interim maintenance as the respondent no.1 was able to maintain herself. The Family Court, by the impugned order dated 10.11.2011, partly allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/-towards interim maintenance. 4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the Family Court has not considered the statements of facts in the reply of the petitioner to the application for grant of interim maintenance. Though the Family Court has considered that the petitioner was earning USD 2070, 1269, 2111 during the fortnights mentioned in paragraph 10 of the order, the Family Court has not considered the amount, which the petitioner was required to spend towards the rent of the Flat, Electricity Bills, Internet Bills, Phone Bills, Petrol Expenses, Grocery, Car Loan Installments, Health Insurance and other expenses as stated in paragraph 48 of the written statement cum reply filed by the petitioner. Without considering the amount, which was required to be spent in United States for the particular standard of living, the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.60,000/-per month to the respondent no.1 by considering his gross income only. The Family Court also did not consider whether the respondent no.1 was really unable to maintain herself as it is an admitted position that the respondent no.1 is a Computer Engineer from a reputed institution and has also a Diploma in Web Developing. The order passed by the Family Court is extremely cryptic and does not consider the material facts stated by the petitioner in his written statement cum reply. The Family Court also did not consider whether the petitioner could have spared an amount of Rs.60,000/-per month towards maintenance for the respondent no.1 and also whether an amount of Rs.60,000/-per month was required towards maintenance for the respondent no.1 for the same standard of living as that of the petitioner. The Family Court also did not consider whether the petitioner could have spared an amount of Rs.60,000/-per month towards maintenance for the respondent no.1 and also whether an amount of Rs.60,000/-per month was required towards maintenance for the respondent no.1 for the same standard of living as that of the petitioner. Since the order is not a reasoned one, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the Family Court on 10.11.2011 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Family Court for a fresh decision on the application for grant of interim maintenance in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 6. Shri Kshirsagar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, states that the respondent no.1 may be permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-deposited by the petitioner in this Court in terms of the order dated 19.12.2011. Shri Naidu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner has not objection if an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-is withdrawn but, the said amount may be adjusted towards the interim maintenance, in case, the interim maintenance is granted by the Family Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent no.1 should, however, repay the amount, in case, the application is rejected. Shri Kshirsagar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, states that the respondent has no objection for adjustment of the amount if the application for interim maintenance is allowed and in case, it is dismissed, the respondent no.1 would repay the amount to the petitioner. 7. In this background, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/-and the respondent no.1 is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Since the petitioner is not residing in India, the amount of Rs.50,000/-may be withdrawn by the mother of the petitioner, who is the Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner. Order accordingly.