A custodial battle for “Henry“, a Rottweiler, is being fought between TMC MP Mahua Moitra and her former partner, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai. While the tussle awaits a final decision, some recent rulings reflect a balancing act of judges when it came to the rights of dog owners and the well-being of the canines whenever such cases landed in courtrooms.Here’s a look at five interesting occasions when pets landed in similar custody battles in Indian courts.MP Mahua Moitra of the Trinamool Congress has recently approached the Delhi High Court to challenge a trial court order that denied the interim custody of her pet dog, Henry. The high court issued notice to her former partner, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, who currently holds the custody of the dog.Henry, the Rottweiler, is around five-and-a-half years old. The trial court had denied the relief, ruling that the matter was about ownership and that Dehadrai had purchased the dog. However, before the high court, Mahua Moitra contended that Jai Anant Dehadrai had paid for the dog on her behalf.The trial court had dismissed the shared custody application on the ground that, under current Indian law, pets were not recognised as wards or children, and that there was no legal concept of a ‘pet parent’. In the high court, Moitra argued that pets could not be treated as mere “movable property” like furniture, and that the court must ensure the pet was not deprived of the affection of a caregiver who raised him.Also read | ‘Dog has special place in Hinduism’: Court cancels FIR against woman for dressing up pet as Lord Krishna‘Emotional bond’“One cannot ignore the emotional bond that gets created between the person adopting the pet and the pet itself,” the Delhi High Court had observed in a 2025 case where a man was ordered to hand over the custody of three toy Pomeranian dogs named Mishti, Coco and Cotton to their adoptive parents.The legal dispute had started from a raid that was conducted on the house of the man who was allegedly keeping some dogs in an unkempt condition. The dogs were rescued by the police and handed over to an NGO. The three dogs were then adopted from the NGO by the adoptive parents. Subsequently, the man filed a claim for ownership of the dogs that was allowed by the trial court which directed the release of the three dogs to him.Story continues below this adJustice Girish Kathpalia noted that the issue of custody of the rescued dogs, or any animal, could not be treated at par with the issue of custody of an inanimate object and that one must also consider the “emotional trauma which those voiceless animals would be undergoing after being separated from their adoptive parents.” In recent times the courts have dealt with dogs belonging to different breeds like the French Mastiff, Golden Retriever, Rottweiler and Toy Pomeranians. (AI Generated Image)Mutual agreementIn a separate incident, a petition was filed by a wife against her husband challenging an order passed by the family court where her plea for seeking access and custody of Tikki (her pet dog) for 3 days a week was rejected on the ground that there was no such provision in law. The dog was with the husband.Justice Madhav J Jamdar of Bombay High Court resorted to appointing a mediator to resolve the issue between the parties. Eventually, the husband and the wife mutually arrived at an arrangement regarding the custody of the pet dog and recorded the agreed upon terms in a document.According to the terms, the husband agreed to give custody of Tikki to the wife for 14 days at the beginning of every month and a specific place and time was decided upon to exchange the custody. The arrangement also included specific terms regarding expenses (food, medical and grooming) and daily routine of the dog. Special clauses relating to travel, day care and veterinary care were also mentioned.Story continues below this adAlso read | Why court ordered 2 men to pay Rs 4 lakh to Delhi animal welfare NGO Friendicoes as ‘atonement’The missing dogThe Kolkata High Court in 2022 had ordered an NGO to return a French Mastiff ‘Bruno’ to its owner from whose home it had gone missing.Bruno was adopted by a woman (owner) in 2019 and had been living with her and her family since then. On December 14, 2021, Bruno went missing from the woman’s home and after she was unable to find it, she filed a missing report with the police. The dog was then traced by the police who gave it to the NGO. The plea for the custody of dog was filed with the court because the request of the woman for return of the dog was not accepted by the NGO.While granting custody of Bruno to the woman, Justices Prakash Shrivastava and Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed that when the neighbours and the local people were asked about the dog, they stated that they had seen the same dog several times with the woman and her family. It was also noted by the court that Bruno was able to identify the woman and her son. “Dog is a symbol of loyalty, compassion, vigilance and protection and therefore a perfect companion to divine power.”Story continues below this ad– Justice Subhas Mehla of Punjab and Haryana High Court in a recent rulingPuppiesOn October 24, 2020, the owner bought two male Golden Retrievers puppies from a shop in Mumbai to his home at Feroze Shah Road, New Delhi. On January 30, 2021, a man who claimed himself to be associated with an NGO along with his accomplices and police officials barged into the house of the owner and took away the puppies. The man also filed a complaint against the owner accusing him of being cruel towards his pets. On the basis of these allegations the trial court refused to give the custody of the dogs to the owner. In appeal against this order, the court released the surviving pet (as one puppy had unfortunately passed away earlier) into the custody of the owner on satisfaction about the welfare of the dog.