Pet custody cannot be treated as property; emotional bond and distress of animals must be considered, says Delhi high court

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has ruled that the custody of animals cannot be treated like that of inanimate property, emphasizing that emotional bonds between pets and their caregivers must be taken into account in such disputes.The court noted that, unlike objects, animals are sentient beings capable of forming deep emotional attachments with those who care for them.The court observed that removing pets from their adoptive caregivers can cause considerable emotional distress to the animals, and such factors should be carefully considered while adjudicating custody disputes.In the present case, the dispute centred on three rescued dogs that were later adopted by the petitioners. While a trial court had earlier ordered that the dogs be returned to their original owner on superdari—the temporary release of seized property—the High Court revisited the matter, placing emphasis on the animals’ welfare and emotional well-being.Adopting a balanced approach, the Court recorded a mutual settlement between the parties and modified its earlier order. It directed that the three dogs—Mishti, Coco, and Cotton—be returned to the petitioners, subject to conditions, including producing the animals before the trial court whenever required.The Court further clarified that if the original owner is ultimately acquitted, the issue of custody may be revisited, with the welfare of the animals remaining a key consideration.The petition was accordingly disposed of with these directions, reiterating that animal welfare and emotional factors must be central in resolving such disputes. Earlier, in another incident, the Delhi High Court quashed two cross-FIRs lodged by neighbours following a heated altercation during a routine dog walk, observing that the dispute was private in nature and continuation of proceedings would amount to "an abuse of the process of law."Justice Arun Monga, while hearing the petitions, observed that both FIRs arose from the same incident involving the handling of their pet dogs. He noted that what started as a dispute escalated into a scuffle, resulting in cross-allegations of assault, intimidation, and misconduct from both parties. "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 in a lighter vein. (With agency inputs)