SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE philosophy of justice in the matrimonial jurisdiction behoves the court to strive to restore conjugal harmony. In order to achieve this object, the parties to the instant appeal were directed to appear in person. Pursuant to the direction, the appellant husband and the respondent wife along with their four children appeared on September 22, 2004. This Court after making attempt to bring about reconciliation between the parties drew order sheet thus:- " THE parties appeared in person along with their children. THEy are prepared to live together for three months to try to settle their disputes. Put up on 4. 1. 2005. THE parties are directed to remain present on that date. "
(2.) THE appeal was listed on January 4, 2005, February 10, 2005 and July 12, 2005 and on these dates both the parties remained present in the court. It appears that both the parties are living together, since there is nothing on record to suggest that they got separated. The marriage of appellant with respondent was solemnized on February 7, 1981 and although litigations under Section 125 Cr. P. C. and Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act were fought by them but it culminated into compromise. The appellant husband then filed a petition against respondent wife for seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The wife denied the averments. Issues were framed, evidence was adduced and the Family Court dismissed the petition on October 20, 2000. Against this decree and judgment of the Family Court that the husband has preferred the instant appeal. Mr. Reashm Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant, canvassed that it is established from record that respondent wife suspected character of appellant. She nourished baseless belief about illicit relationship between the appellant and his Bhabhi. This act of respondent amounts to cruelty. Reliance is placed on A. Jaychandra vs. Aneel Kaur (2005) 2 SCC 22 = RLW 2005 (2) SC 196, Parvati vs. Prem Singh (2001 WLC (UC) 212 and Indu Mishra vs. Kovid Kumar 2006 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 182 = RLW 2006 (1) Raj. 501. We, in view of the fact that both the parties have been residing together since September 22, 2004 and their conjugal harmony is restored, do not think that ground of cruelty still exists. For these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed. No costs. . ;