The Delhi High Court has ruled that the custody of animals should not be treated as the custody of inanimate property, emphasising the importance of the emotional bond between pets and their caregivers in related disputes.
The Court stated that unlike objects, animals are sentient beings that form strong emotional connections with those who care for them. It noted that separating pets from their adoptive caregivers could cause significant emotional trauma to the animals and that such aspects must be considered when deciding custody matters.
The case involved a dispute over three rescued pet dogs, Mishti, Coco, and Cotton, which were adopted by the petitioners. A trial court had initially ordered the dogs to be returned to their original owner under superdari, a temporary release of seized property to a person. However, the High Court reconsidered the matter, focusing on the welfare and emotional well-being of the animals.
After recording a mutual agreement between the parties, the Court modified the earlier order, directing that the dogs be handed to the petitioners subject to conditions including presenting the animals before the trial court when required. The Court also stated that if the original owner is ultimately acquitted, custody could be reconsidered with the animals’ welfare in mind.
The petition was disposed of with these directions, reinforcing that animal welfare and emotional considerations should play a central role in such disputes.
Separately, the Delhi High Court quashed two cross-FIRs lodged by neighbours following a dispute during a routine dog walk, observing that the matter was private and continuing legal proceedings would constitute “an abuse of the process of law.” Justice Arun Monga noted that both FIRs arose from the same incident involving handling of the pets. A disagreement escalated into a scuffle, leading to allegations of assault, intimidation, and misbehaviour from both sides.
“Both FIRs represent a version and a counter-version of the dispute. The disagreement escalated during a routine dog walk. Truly, a case that redefines ‘for the love of dogs!’,” the High Court remarked.