Delhi High Court Rules Animal Custody Disputes Are Not Property Matters

Modifying the orders of the trial court, Justice Girish Kathpalia directed that three rescued pet dogs be returned to their adoptive owners. (AI image)

The Delhi High Court has held that custody disputes involving animals cannot be treated like ordinary property matters, stressing that the welfare and emotional well-being of animals must guide interim custody decisions. Modifying the orders of the trial court, Justice Girish Kathpalia directed that three rescued pet dogs be returned to their adoptive owners, recognizing the emotional bond shared between the animals and their caregivers.

Background: Rescue, Adoption, and Dispute The case arose from proceedings under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, where authorities conducted a raid at the premises of Respondent No. 3 and found several dogs kept in deplorable conditions. The rescued dogs were entrusted to an NGO, which then placed three of the dogs (female toy Pomeranians - Mishti, Coco and Cotton) with the current petitioners. However, the original owner later approached the trial court seeking custody (superdari) of the rescued animals. The trial court allowed the application and directed release of all the dogs to him, leading the adoptive owners to challenge the order before the High Court.

At the outset, the Court drew a clear distinction between animals and property. It observed: “The issue of custody of the rescued dogs… cannot be treated at par with the issue of custody of an inanimate object.” The Court thus clearly distinguished animals from property for the purpose of custody, rejecting any mechanical approach to such disputes.

A key factor that weighed with the Court was the emotional attachment formed between the dogs and their adoptive caregivers. The Court noted: “One cannot ignore the emotional bond that gets created between the person adopting the pet and the pet itself.” It further highlighted the distress that the animals would suffer if separated, referring to the “emotional trauma which those voiceless animals would be undergoing.” The Court emphasised that the welfare of the animals must take precedence while determining interim custody, especially when they had already acclimatized to their new environment and responded to their names.

Limited Scope: Not Deciding Ownership or Cruelty Importantly, the Court clarified that it was not adjudicating upon the allegations of cruelty or final ownership rights at this stage. It observed: “Presently, the issue is not as to whether the respondent was or is treating the dogs with cruelty; that would be in the domain of the trial court.” The Court thus confined itself to the limited question of interim custody, guided solely by welfare considerations rather than competing ownership claims.

Settlement in Interest of Animals During the hearing, both sides arrived at a consensual arrangement, keeping the welfare of the animals at the forefront. The Court recorded that the original owner agreed to return the dogs to the petitioners, subject to a condition that in the event of his acquittal, custody may be reconsidered depending upon the welfare of the animals. Notably, the Court recorded that the arrangement was arrived at “in the interest of those three dogs.”

In its operative directions, the Court ordered that the three dogs- Mishti, Coco, and Cotton, be handed over to the petitioners through the Investigating Officer. The petitioners were directed to furnish superdarinamas of Rs.50,000/- each before the trial court and to produce the animals as and when required during the course of the trial. This ensured that while interim custody remains with the adoptive owners, the trial proceedings are not prejudiced.

The High Court held that custody of rescued animals must be determined keeping in mind their welfare and emotional well-being, and cannot be treated as a mere property dispute. Recognising the bond between the dogs and their adoptive caregivers, and recording the consent of the parties, the Court modified the trial court’s orders and directed that the three dogs be returned to the petitioners on superdari, subject to production before the trial court as required, while ensuring that their welfare remains the paramount consideration.

W.P.(CRL) 581/2026 Date of Decision: 16.04.2026 MR. SUNIL MALHOTRA & ORS vs STATE, NCT OF DELHI & ORS. For Petitioner: Ms. Puja Anand and Ms. Manisha Parmar, Advocates with petitioners in person. For Respondent: Mr. Anand V. Khatri, ASC for State with SI Sumit and HC Ravi Bansal, PS Jagatpuri. Mr. Siddharth Chaturvedi and Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocates for R-3 with R-3 in person. (The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)