|
The Delhi High Court has held that the custody of animals cannot be treated on par with inanimate property, emphasising that the emotional bond between pets and their caregivers must be given due consideration while deciding such disputes.
The Court observed that, unlike objects, animals are sentient beings and develop 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 such factors must be kept in mind while deciding custody issues. In the present case, the dispute arose over three rescued pet dogs that were later adopted by the petitioners. While a trial court had earlier directed that the dogs be returned to their original owner on superdari, the High Court reconsidered the issue by focusing on the welfare of the animals and their emotional well-being. Superdari is the temporary release of seized property by a court to a person. Taking a balanced approach, the Court recorded a mutual agreement between the parties and modified the earlier order. It directed that the three dogs, Mishti, Coco, and Cotton, be handed back to the petitioners, subject to conditions including production of the animals before the trial court when required. The Court also clarified that if the original owner is ultimately acquitted, custody may be reconsidered, keeping the welfare of the animals in mind. The petition was accordingly disposed of with these directions, reinforcing that animal welfare and emotional considerations must play a central role in 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 dealing with the petitions, noted that both FIRs stemmed from the same incident relating to the handling of their pet dogs. What began as 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 in a lighter vein. (ANI)
|
