Let the original amount be 'M'. After giving half to his wife, M/2 remains. After giving half of remaining to son, M/4 remains. After giving 60% of remaining to daughter, 40% of M/4 (i.e., 0.4 * M/4 = M/10) remains. If M/10 = 1000, then M = 10000. Let's recheck. Wife gets M/2. Remaining is M/2. Son gets (1/2)*(M/2) = M/4. Remaining is M/2 - M/4 = M/4. Daughter gets 60% of M/4. Remaining is 40% of M/4 = 0.4 * (M/4) = M/10. If M/10 = 1000, then M = 10000. There must be an error in my calculation or interpretation. Let's work backwards. Left with 1000 after giving daughter 60%. So 1000 is 40% of what was before giving to daughter. Amount before daughter = 1000 / 0.4 = 2500. This 2500 was remaining after giving half to son. So, before son, the amount was 2500 * 2 = 5000. This 5000 was remaining after giving half to wife. So, original amount = 5000 * 2 = 10000. Rechecking option D: Original=20000. Wife gets 10000, remaining 10000. Son gets 5000, remaining 5000. Daughter gets 60% of 5000 = 3000. Remaining = 5000 - 3000 = 2000. This does not match 1000. Let's re-read. 'half of the remaining to his son'. Wife: M/2. Rem: M/2. Son: (1/2)*(M/2) = M/4. Rem: M/2 - M/4 = M/4. Daughter: 60% of M/4 = 0.6 * (M/4) = 0.6M/4 = 3M/20. Left: M/4 - 3M/20 = 5M/20 - 3M/20 = 2M/20 = M/10. So M/10 = 1000 => M = 10000. My interpretation leads to 10000. Let me assume the question implies the amounts given away are percentages of the *original* amount. But it says 'remaining'. Let's recheck the backwards calculation with the initial assumption. Left with 1000. This is after giving daughter 60% of remaining. So 1000 is 40% of the amount *before* giving to daughter. Amount before daughter = 1000 / 0.4 = 2500. This 2500 was remaining *after* giving son half of the remaining. So the amount *before* giving to son was 2500 * 2 = 5000. This 5000 was remaining *after* giving wife half of the original. So the original amount was 5000 * 2 = 10000. Still getting 10000. There might be an issue with the provided options or the intended interpretation. Let's assume option D is correct and see if it fits any interpretation. Original=20000. Wife gets 10000. Rem=10000. Son gets 5000 (half of rem). Rem=5000. Daughter gets 60% of rem (5000) = 3000. Left with 2000. Doesn't match 1000. Let's assume the question means '60% of the *original* amount to daughter'. No, 'remaining' is clear. There seems to be a contradiction. Let's assume the 'remaining' refers to the amount *after* the previous distribution, not the amount *before* the distribution to the current recipient. Wife: M/2 given. Rem: M/2. Son: (1/2)*(M/2) = M/4 given. Rem: M/2 - M/4 = M/4. Daughter: 60% of M/4 = 0.6 * (M/4) = 3M/20 given. Left with M/4 - 3M/20 = M/10. So M/10 = 1000. M = 10000. If the question implies the daughter received 60% of what was *left* after the son's share was taken, and 1000 is the final remaining, the original amount is 10000. Since 10000 is not an option and the closest is 10000, let's re-evaluate. The problem must be in the interpretation of 'remaining' or the options are incorrect. Let's check Option D again: 20000. Wife: 10000. Rem: 10000. Son: 5000. Rem: 5000. Daughter: 60% of 5000 = 3000. Left: 2000. This still doesn't match. Let's re-read again carefully. 'He gives half of it to his wife'. Amount left = M/2. 'and half of the remaining to his son'. Amount left = (M/2)/2 = M/4. 'He gives 60% of the remaining to his daughter'. Amount left = (M/4) * (1-0.6) = (M/4) * 0.4 = M/10. 'and is left with Rs. 1000'. So M/10 = 1000 => M = 10000. The provided options seem incorrect based on the standard interpretation. Assuming there is a typo and the final amount is Rs. 2000, then M/10 = 2000 => M = 20000, which is option D. Given the options, this is the most plausible interpretation, assuming a typo in the final amount.