( 1 ) wp2126-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2126 OF 2010 Shaikh Sadiq Shaikh Rahim PETITIONER VERSUS Shabanabi d/o Saiyed Shaukat Ali and others. RESPONDENTS .... Ms. Quazi Sadaf, advocate holding for Mr. N.R. Shaikh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Pawar, advocate holding for Mr. S.P. Brahme, advocate for the respondents. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th January, 2011] PER COURT : 1. This petition is being finally disposed of at the stage of admission in view of short question involved therein. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The respondent and the petitioner were married a way back. The respondent had initiated proceedings under section ( 2 ) wp2126-10 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for separate maintenance allowance for herself and her minor children. The learned Magistrate held that she is a divorced wife and was entitled to claim the maintenance allowance though the children were eligible to claim such allowance. Her application to the extent of maintenance allowance sought was dismissed. The respondent unsuccessfully claimed the maintenance allowance and ultimately Criminal Writ Petition No. 650/2009 filed by her in this Court came to be dismissed. A Single Bench of this Court, however, observed that in view of the pendency of suit (R.C.S. No. 174/2004), the judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the Additional Sessions Judge and also of this Court in the context of the maintenance proceedings be not treated as final and would be subject to the decision of the Civil Court. 4. It appears that the petitioner filed proceedings vide Civil Misc. Application No. 138/2008 for custody of the minor children by name Sahil @ Danish and Rahil. In the said proceedings, the petitioner added the respondent by showing her maiden name i.e. Shabanabi d/o Shaukat Ali. She applied for directions to the petitioner seeking modification of her name being the married wife of the petitioner. By the ( 3 ) wp2126-10 impugned and cryptic order, the learned District Judge allowed the application of the respondent. The impugned order reads as follows : " O Read say. Heard learned counsels for both the parties. In the interest of justice petitioner is directed to correct name of respondent No. 1 by way of amendment. Sd/- 9.11.09" 5. The phraseology "in the interest of justice" as used in the impugned order is too abstract in the context. What is `interest of justice' is required to be duly appreciated. It is too vague and slippery phrase which may befeat any stand and may be moulded in any direction and unless there is some foundation available, mere use of such expression "in the interest of justice" will not clothe the orders as legal. The learned District Judge failed to appreciate the purport of the application. The wife can not claim use of her married status in the proceedings unless there is some material to show that such status is available to her. In "Neelam Dadasaheb Shewale vs. Dadasaheb Bandu Shewale" 2010 (2) Bom.C.R. 575, a Single Bench of this Court held that the wife ( 4 ) wp2126-10 cannot use husband's name anywhere after the divorce. As stated earlier, the status of the respondent as divorced wife was confirmed in the proceedings for maintenance allowance. She was denied the maintenance allowance in such proceedings and the order was confirmed upto the High Court. True, the orders are subject to the decision of the civil Court. The reason is that the orders of the civil Court are binding on that of the criminal Court. So, if at all the civil Court will render finding in favour of the respondent, then alone she may claim her status as wife of the petitioner and thereafter may seek so called amendment. Until then, the amendment application should not have been allowed. The petitioner was directed to carry out the amendment against his will and without assigning any tangible reason. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application for amendment as filed by the respondent be deemed as dismissed. No adverse inference to be drawn by the trial Court in the proceedings for the purpose of grant of custody of the children on basis of such observations made hereinabove. The proceedings for ( 5 ) wp2126-10 custody of the children shall be expeditiously decided and as far as possible within period of six (6) months. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp2126-10