Veena Danial Vs. Sunil Danial

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - the court was satisfied that she was entitled to a decree and granted the same of which confirmation had been sought by the distt......notice to the respondent of the application. but that returned unserved the appellant produced evidence to prove the allegations made by her in the application. the court was satisfied that she was entitled to a decree and granted the same of which confirmation had been sought by the distt. judge from the high court by this application.2. on the last turn when the application was listed before us, we made an order for service to be effected on the respondent but that has come back with the endorsement 'unclaimed' 'intimated'. we have perused the summons and we find that the service was effected on the mother of the respondent. in the circumstances, the service on the respondent will be deemed to be sufficient. no one has appeared today on behalf of the respondent to controvert the allegations made by the appellant about the behaviour, as he was doing carnal intercourse, which is unnatural under section 10 of indian divorce act a wife could get a decree in her favour for dissolution of marriage if her husband commits sodomy on her. we are of the opinion that the appellant was rightly given a decree against the respondent. consequently, we confirm the same.3. in the result, the reference application is allowed and the decree of divorce granted by the court below is confirmed.the parties will bear their own costs.