ORDER : 1. Present appellant, who is the original petitioner in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 79 of 2014 and the appellant in Regular Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2018, has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2018 by which, the learned first appellate Court was pleased to confirm the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2017 passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 79 of 2014 (HMP) whereby, the said petition for divorce came to be dismissed by the trial Court. 2. Short facts of the case may be referred as under: 2.1 The appellant – petitioner had filed the aforesaid HMP before the trial Court inter alia contending that respondent herein, who is the wife of the appellant, was constantly harassing him and she was very obstinate and insisted that the appellant should live separately from his parents. It was further contended that the respondent – wife left society of the appellant without any reasonable cause and when the appellant and his parents requested for divorce, the respondent initially agreed, however, thereafter, retracted from her promise. Legal notice issued by the appellant was vaguely replied. Hence, the appellant filed HMP for divorce, which came to be dismissed and an appeal preferred there-against, also came to be dismissed and hence, this appeal. 3. Heard, learned counsel Mr. Rachchh for the appellant. 3.1 It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that both the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that it is the respondent – wife who has deserted the appellant since long without any reasonable cause and treated the appellant with cruelty. It was also submitted that the appellant has proved desertion by respondent – wife before the trial Court from 15.05.2006 onwards and thereafter, she had never come back to join the appellant, which can be easily substantiated from the evidence of Mangalbhai Dahyabhai Pate, exh. 25. The learned counsel for the appellant, by referring section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, submitted that the case of the appellant false under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib). Besides, the respondent is a headstrong person and keen on making wrongful and impracticable demands. 25. The learned counsel for the appellant, by referring section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, submitted that the case of the appellant false under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib). Besides, the respondent is a headstrong person and keen on making wrongful and impracticable demands. Thus, making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present appeal by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned Courts below. 3.2 In the alternative, the learned counsel for the appellant also requested to refer the matter to the mediation center for amicable settlement. 3.3 Following substantial questions of law have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant : (1) Whether the learned Judge has erred, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in not interfering with the erroneous and improper judgment and order passed by the trial Court, while exercising powers of appellate Court. (2) Whether the Courts below have erred in not appreciating the evidence, oral as well as documentary, produced by the appellant in its true perspective while passing the impugned order and further erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Narendra Vs. K. Meena, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 455 . (3) Whether both the Courts below have erred in considering the case of opponent as gospel truth thereby discarding the case of appellant without any cogent and convincing reasons by ignoring the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. (4) Whether the Courts below have erred in law and facts in respect of not appreciating the grounds of cruelty and desertion and has further erred in passing the impugned judgments and decree thereby discarding the case of appellant for dissolution of marriage upon considering of irrelevant facts and non-consideration of relevant facts. (5) Whether the appellate Court has erred in not framing issues as required under Order 41 Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure? (6) Whether the Courts below have erred in not believing the case of appellant with regard to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage in view of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Sitole Vs. Ganga, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 734 . 4. (6) Whether the Courts below have erred in not believing the case of appellant with regard to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage in view of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Sitole Vs. Ganga, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 734 . 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the facts of the case so also considering the impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned Courts below, it appears that the appellant has mainly taken the ground of cruelty and desertion by the respondent – wife for basing his prayer for divorce before the trial Court. In this regard, Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) are relevant and hence, relevant is extracted hereunder: “13. Divorce: (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party [(i) has after the solemnization of a marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or (ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or (ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or] *** 4.1 It is well-settled principle of law that burden of proving an assertion lies on the who makes the same. In this case, it is the appellant on whom this burden lies, as to proving the cruelty and the desertion on the part of the respondent - wife. In the case on hand, as per the learned Courts below, the appellant has failed to prove both these aspects. From the decision of the learned Courts below, it appears that the respondent has filed her written statement at exh. 11 taking a contradictory contention and stated that, in fact, it is the appellant who has deserted the respondent – wife and not the present respondent. Even, the appellant has not paid any alimony for survival of the respondent. The respondent was beaten and driven out of her matrimonial home with her minor child. Besides, all her attempts to return to her matrimonial home went in vain as the appellant refused to accept her. At this juncture, if the evidence of one Mangalbhai Dahyabhia Patel, exh. Even, the appellant has not paid any alimony for survival of the respondent. The respondent was beaten and driven out of her matrimonial home with her minor child. Besides, all her attempts to return to her matrimonial home went in vain as the appellant refused to accept her. At this juncture, if the evidence of one Mangalbhai Dahyabhia Patel, exh. 25 is taken into consideration, as it reveals from the body of the judgment of the trial Court, this witness has categorically stated that despite several efforts to persuade the appellant to restore the respondent wife by amicable settlement, nothing fruitful could be gained. Besides, it has also surfaced from the judgments of the trial Court that the respondent – wife had filed a complaint against the present appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and application for maintenance. Be that as it may. There are concurrent findings of the learned Courts below that the present appellant has failed to prove the ingredients of desertion and cruelty to him on the part of the respondent – wife. It is well settled proposition of law that in the proceedings for divorce, the plaintiff must prove the desertion, like any other matrimonial offence, beyond all reasonable doubt. Though, corroboration is not required as an absolute rule of law, the Courts insists upon corroborative evidence, unless its absence is accounted for to the satisfaction of the Courts. Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, no error, much less an error of law, has been committed by the learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and Order. Present appeal, having found bereft of any merits, requires to be dismissed. 4.2 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narayanan Rajendran and Another V. Lekshmy Sarojini and Others, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 264 has expressed the word of caution referring to the scope of exercise of discretion under Section 100 of the civil procedure code after the amendment of 1976 by observing that, 'the scope of interference by the High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC after the 1976 amendment has been drastically changed and is strictly confined to cases involving substantial questions of law'. It is further observed that, 'The High Court would not be justified in dealing with any second appeal without first formulating substantial question of law'. It is further observed that, 'The High Court would not be justified in dealing with any second appeal without first formulating substantial question of law'. 4.3 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagarpalika Thakurwara V. Khalil Ahmed and Others, reported in AIR 2016 SC 4477 has observed as to what could be said to be substantial question of law. In the facts and circumstances as discussed herein above, there is hardly any question of law which can be said to have been involved and therefore, the present appeal cannot be entertained and the judgment and order passed by both the learned Courts below cannot be said to be perverse which would call for any interference. 5. In view of the above, present appellant is dismissed in limine. 5.1 However, at the request of learned counsel for the appellant to permit the appellant to approach District Legal Services Authority, Mediation Center, Gandhinagar for amicable solution of the matrimonial dispute between the appellant and respondent, the permission, as sought for, is hereby granted. On approaching the Mediation Center, Gandhinagar, the Secretary, Mediation Center shall make best endeavour to resolve the dispute between the parties. 6. Direct service is permitted.