The Delhi High Court has held that animal custody disputes cannot be treated like cases involving inanimate property, emphasising that courts must consider the emotional bond shared between pets and their caregivers when deciding such matters in law.
The Delhi High Court ruled that animal custody disputes cannot be handled in the same manner as disputes involving inanimate property, stressing that the emotional bond between pets and their caregivers must be considered.
In a petition relating to the custody of three rescued pet dogs, the bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia ordered that the dogs be returned to their adoptive parents.
The Court noted that, after a detailed discussion, the parties reached an arrangement for the welfare of the dogs, and it recorded the following:
“After detailed discussion, keeping in mind welfare of those three pet dogs, both sides have arrived at an agreement that the said three dogs be released to the present petitioners on superdari. To be specific, respondent no.3 present in courtroom has been explained the entire discussion in Hindi and he, in the interest of those three dogs, is willing to return those dogs to the petitioners with the condition that in case ultimately he gets acquitted, custody of those three dogs would be returned to him, subject to their welfare”
The case arose after a trial court directed the dogs to be released on superdari to a person who claimed to be their original owner.
The animals had been rescued earlier during a raid conducted in connection with allegations of cruelty. After the rescue, the dogs were placed with a non-governmental organization, which later facilitated the adoption of the dogs by the petitioners.
Before the High Court, the core issue was not whether the respondent had committed cruelty an issue that remains for the trial court to decide but instead who should have custody of the dogs in the interim, with their welfare and wellbeing in mind.
The Court highlighted a key distinction between living beings and inanimate objects, holding that conventional rules used in property disputes cannot simply be applied in matters involving animals.
It further emphasized that pets are sentient beings capable of forming emotional attachments, and that such bonds must be weighed when deciding custody.
The Court observed,
“One cannot ignore the emotional bond that gets created between the person adopting the pet and the pet itself. Presently before this Court, the issue is not as to whether the present respondent no. 3 was or is treating the dogs with cruelty; that would be in the domain of the trial court. Presently, the issue before this Court is the emotional trauma which those voiceless animals would be undergoing after being separated from their adoptive parents (the present petitioners),”
The judgment reflects a broader judicial recognition of animal welfare as a significant factor, moving beyond a framework that looks only at ownership.
By focusing on the dogs’ wellbeing and emotional state, the Court aligned its reasoning with legal developments that treat animals as more than mere property.
During the proceedings, the respondent who claimed ownership agreed to return the dogs to the petitioners, subject to a condition that custody could revert to him if he is ultimately acquitted in the related criminal case.
ALSO READ: Stray Dogs Row: Supreme Court to Hear Suo Motu Case on October 27
The High Court, taking note of this position, modified the trial court’s orders and directed that the dogs be handed over to the petitioners through the investigating officer. This ensured that their care and familiar environment would continue without interruption.
Overall, the ruling reinforces the principle that animal custody disputes must be resolved through a welfare-first approach, considering not only legal claims but also the emotional and psychological interests of the animals involved.
By clarifying that animals are not comparable to inanimate property, the Delhi High Court has contributed to the expanding jurisprudence on animal rights and welfare in India.