Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by Charanjit Kaur to challenge the dismissal of her petition for divorce by learned Additional District Judge, Moga vide judgment dated April 4, 2005. 2. Charanjit Kaur was married to Harinarain Singh on February 4, 1996. She gave birth to a daughter named Daljit Kaur on October 25, 1996. In 1999 her husband Harinarain Singh went abroad without her consent. She later came to know that he was in Italy. Harinarain Singh did not remain in touch with her and nor did he speak to her on telephone. Charanjit Kaur returned to her parents and filed the petition on July 26, 2004 pleading that she had been deserted since 1999 and efforts of the panchayat had remained fruitless. 3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent, notice was also served on respondents mother Bhagwan Kaur but the respondent did not appear inspite of service. However, a letter sent by the respondent was received by the Court. On December 13, 2004 respondent was proceeded against ex parte and ex parte evidence was recorded. 4. The learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the petition was collusive and the Court could not grant a collusive decree of divorce. Therefore, ex parte evidence of the petitioner was of no avail. 5. The learned Trial Judge took a strict legalistic view of the provisions of the Hindu Marraige Act by holding that he should not grant a collusive decree of divorce but seemed to overlook the social aspects of the case. Here was a woman who had been deserted by her husband for five years before she lodged the divorce petition. The husband had not bothered about her and her daughter during this period. The petitioner was not seeking any permanent or temporary alimony but simply release from the matrimonial bond. 6. If the respondent had been present in India or had been able to travel from Italy to India without to much expense the parties could well have obtained divorce by mutual consent in terms of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 7. In the present case there is de facto consent between the parties for divorce although strictly speaking the petition was not on the basis of the mutual consent and was indeed a collusive one. 8. 7. In the present case there is de facto consent between the parties for divorce although strictly speaking the petition was not on the basis of the mutual consent and was indeed a collusive one. 8. Counsel for the respondent has been instructed by the respondents mother Bhagwan Kaur, who is present in Court, to submit that the divorce petition deserves to be allowed and divorce granted to the petition on the ground of desertion. 9. We are satisfied that the respondents mother has, on the basis of instructions from the respondent, instructed the counsel to agree to divorce. We realise that this is an unusual procedure but in the light of the ex parte evidence recorded by the learned trial Judge and the realities of life, we feel that a lenient view may be taken and the provisions of Section 23(1)(c) be overlooked in the facts of the present case. 10. Consequently this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge Moga is set aside: The petition for divorce filed by Charanjit Kaur Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is accepted. The marriage between Charanjit Kaur and Harinarain Singh is hereby dissolved by decree of divorcee.