THIS is the cause of the whole fiasco. Legally, it's a fascinating question. The law treats animals like chattel rather than children. In the video below, India Today says that owners have to register dogs with the Kennel Club of India.
If this is true, then the dog is his property. But we can see from the videos Mahua uploaded that she loves Henry very much. So should the law treat dogs as similar to children and allow sharing of custody? How can court do so? By giving fundamental rights to dogs that trump the Kennel Club rules? Wouldn't that be judicial overreach?
The court can make both of them stand side by side and see whom Henry goes to sniff first. If he bites the judge in the process, then he can be sentenced to getting fixed from the vet.
Ownership and division of property in marital situations is not always straightforward. JD and MM were in a relationship in the nature of marriage. If she invokes the DV Act he might be in trouble...
Plus JD has for some reason chosen to go to Delhi Police instead of filing a civil suit for recovery of his "property"...what gives?
She has already said in one of her responses that he was physically and verbally abusive. And previously trespassed into her flat to try and steal Henry. Grounds enough under the DV Act I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzpJifnbvsw
Now, Dehadrai alleges in his police complaint of 19 October (below) that he bought the dog and was given the Kennel Club certificate.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8y4195XYAAyAVN.jpg
If this is true, then the dog is his property. But we can see from the videos Mahua uploaded that she loves Henry very much. So should the law treat dogs as similar to children and allow sharing of custody? How can court do so? By giving fundamental rights to dogs that trump the Kennel Club rules? Wouldn't that be judicial overreach?
Plus JD has for some reason chosen to go to Delhi Police instead of filing a civil suit for recovery of his "property"...what gives?
Your defence of MM is just pathetic.