Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. On March 17, 2016 the Bench hearing the appeal recorded that an important question of law was raised in the appeal and thus appointed Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate as the Amicus. On the next date learned Amicus informed the Court that the bindingness and effect of customary divorce had been pronounced upon by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as AIR 1968 SC 142 Gurdit Singh Vs. Angrez Kaur.

2. Learned Amicus does not appear today. In our opinion no question of law arises for consideration in the instant appeal concerning the issue of customary divorce and it appears that the order dated March 17, 2016 was passed without considering the pleadings.

3. Suffice it to state that an issue of custom arises out of the pleadings of the parties. If a party pleads custom, it has to be pleaded with such particulars as are to be found in Gurdit Singh’s case. Either an authoritative digest of customary law has to be cited or witnesses have to be examined. It has also to be established by evidence that the parties belong to a tribe, clan or a social group where said custom is practised and recognized.

4. In the appeal it is pleaded that the appellant and the re