Matrimonial litigation in India has traditionally revolved around familiar questions: Who gets the house after a matrimonial dispute? Who gets custody of the children? Who pays maintenance? These are questions that Indian courts have dealt with for decades. But as family structures evolve, another question is increasingly finding its way to the courts: who gets the pet?

For many Indian households, a companion animal is no longer viewed merely as an item to be kept at home; they become a part of their everyday lives. When a marriage or long-term relationship breaks down, separation from the pet can, therefore, become another significant consequence of the matrimonial dispute.

Indian law, however, contains no specific framework prescribing how a court should determine the custody, possession or visitation of a companion animal. This leaves courts to navigate the issue through existing civil, procedural and animal welfare laws.

The issue is no longer hypothetical. Indian courts have increasingly been confronted with disputes concerning the custody of companion animals.

The Delhi High Court’s proceedings concerning Henry, a Rottweiler, have brought the question of pet visitation directly into the matrimonial-litigation landscape. The Bombay High Court has also facilitated a mediated shared-care arrangement concerning a pet dog in a matrimonial dispute. Meanwhile, in a separate 2026 case involving three Toy Pomeranians, the Delhi High Court expressly observed that custody of an animal cannot simply be treated on the same footing as custody of an inanimate object. 

The question, therefore, is not whether Indian courts will encounter pet custody disputes. They already are. These cases point towards a question that Indian family law will increasingly have to confront: when a relationship between two people ends, what legal principles should determine the future of the animal that remains part of both their lives?

The starting point under Indian law is complicated. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960⁠ defines an “animal” broadly as any living creature other than a human being. Section 3 places a duty upon a person having the care or charge of an animal to take reasonable measures for its well-being and to prevent unnecessary pain or suffering. The legislation, however, does not contain a mechanism for determining which spouse should retain a companion animal following separation.

This creates an unusual legal position. A pet may be capable of being the subject of ownership, possession or property-related claims, but it is simultaneously a sentient living being whose welfare may be affected by the outcome of the dispute. That distinction has increasingly acquired judicial recognition.

In Animal Welfare Board of India v. A Nagaraja (2014), the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of animal welfare and recognised the capacity of animals to experience pain and suffering. However, the later Constitution Bench decision in Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India⁠ (2023) clarified that the Constitution does not recognise fundamental rights for animals in the same manner as human beings. 

That does not mean, however, that the welfare of an animal becomes irrelevant when a court is deciding its custody. There is an important middle ground between treating a pet as a piece of property and treating it as a child. That middle ground is where pet custody disputes ought to be addressed.

Recent cases show that courts are beginning to move beyond a purely property-centric approach.

In Sunil Malhotra & Ors. v. State, NCT of Delhi & Ors (2026), the Delhi High Court considered the custody of three Toy Pomeranians - Mishti, Coco and Cotton. The dispute arose after the dogs had been rescued from allegedly deplorable conditions and subsequently adopted. When another person claimed ownership and obtained an order for their release, the adoptive caregivers approached the High Court.

Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the custody of rescued dogs “cannot be treated at par with the issue of custody of an inanimate object”. The Court specifically considered the emotional bond between the dogs and their adoptive caregivers and the emotional trauma that could result from separating them. Ultimately, with the consent of the parties, the dogs were released to the petitioners, subject to their welfare. 

Although this was not a matrimonial dispute, the reasoning is significant. It recognises that an animal’s existing relationship with a caregiver can be relevant to a judicial decision concerning its custody.

The Bombay High Court provides another useful example. In a matrimonial dispute concerning a dog named Tikki, the family court had rejected the wife’s request for access and custody on the basis that there was no specific legal provision providing for such relief. The High Court appointed a mediator, following which the parties reached an agreement. The arrangement provided, among other things, that the wife would have custody of Tikki for 14 days at the beginning of every month, with detailed arrangements concerning exchange, food, medical expenses, grooming, travel and veterinary care. 

This approach is particularly interesting because it recognises the reality of living with an animal. A court can decide ownership, but ownership alone does not answer who takes the dog to the vet when it falls ill or who looks after it when one party travels.

The ongoing dispute concerning Henry demonstrates the same legal gap from another angle. In Mahua Moitra v. Jai Anant Dehadrai (2026), the Delhi High Court considered an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking interim access to Henry 3 times every 10 days.

If Parliament does not provide a specific framework, courts will inevitably have to develop workable principles through individual cases.

The first should be primary caregiving. Who actually looks after the animal? Who feeds it, takes it for walks, takes it to the veterinarian and maintains its daily routine? These questions may sometimes tell a court more about the animal’s relationship with a person than a purchase receipt ever could.

Second, courts could consider the duration and nature of the relationship between the animal and each spouse. A person who has lived with and cared for the animal for several years may have a different claim from someone whose connection arose only shortly before separation.

Third, the stability and suitability of the proposed home should be examined. Working hours, availability of caregivers, living arrangements, access to veterinary care and the animal’s established routine may all be relevant.

Fourth, financial contribution can be considered, but should not automatically determine custody. Paying for an animal is not necessarily the same as providing sustained daily care.

Fifth, any evidence of cruelty, neglect, abandonment or conduct placing the animal at risk should carry considerable weight, particularly given the statutory duties imposed by Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

Where children are involved, their relationship with the animal could also be considered. This does not mean importing the “best interests of the child” test into pet disputes. It simply recognises that during an already difficult family breakdown, removing a familiar companion may have further consequences on children as well.

The question of shared custody requires greater caution. It may sound like the fairest solution, but moving an animal between two homes may not always be in its interests. Some pets may adapt perfectly well; others may need a stable environment and consistent routine. Shared care should, therefore, be considered only where it is genuinely workable.

The guiding question should ultimately be: What arrangement causes the least disruption to the animal’s welfare?

India may not need an entirely separate “Pet Custody Act”. A more practical solution could be to incorporate companion-animal provisions into the existing family law framework.

Family courts could be given express jurisdiction to determine disputes concerning companion animals between spouses or former spouses. Courts could be empowered to pass interim custody orders, recognise primary caregiving and provide for visitation where appropriate.

Mediation should form an important part of this framework. Unlike a conventional ownership dispute, pet disputes often involve continuing responsibilities. A mediated settlement can deal with practical matters that a court order may overlook - medical expenses, travel, handover arrangements, grooming and access.

There is already comparative support for such an approach. Section 503(n) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act permits courts dealing with dissolution proceedings to allocate sole or joint ownership and responsibility for a companion animal while considering the animal’s well-being.

India need not transplant foreign law in a mechanical manner. Its framework could instead draw upon existing animal welfare legislation, family court jurisdiction and mediation mechanisms. The objective should be to prevent the welfare of a sentient companion animal from becoming an accidental casualty of matrimonial litigation.

Indian matrimonial law has developed detailed mechanisms for divorce, maintenance, residence and child custody. The modern household has now created another category of dispute that the legislature has not expressly addressed.

Recent cases demonstrate that Indian courts are already searching for a practical middle ground. What is missing is a consistent set of principles to guide that exercise. In the longer term, however, Parliament may have to consider whether family law should expressly recognise disputes concerning companion animals.

After all, when a marriage ends, the parties may be able to divide their property and move on. A pet, however, cannot choose where it lives, who cares for it, or whether it remains part of the life it has known.

Ultimately, the question should not be limited to Who owns the pet? It should be: Which arrangement best protects the welfare of the animal whose life has become entangled in the breakdown of the human relationship around it?

Vedang Khera is an advocate practising before the Delhi High Court and the district courts of Delhi.