We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Your defence of MM is just pathetic.
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?
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?