Custody battle over two dogs ends with woman losing case, paying $3,500 in costs
A woman who took her ex-husband to court in a bid to claim two pet dogs she insisted belong to her had her application dismissed, and was ordered to pay her former spouse $3,500.
Principal District Judge of the Family Justice Courts Muhammad Hidhir Abdul Majid ruled that both dogs were part of the couple's matrimonial assets, but that the woman had not proven ownership of the pooches.
Court documents showed that the couple married in February 2020 and divorced four years later. In May 2024, a consent order was recorded on ancillary matters, comprising the division of their matrimonial flat and other assets.
In March 2025, the woman filed an application accusing the man of breaching a court order by refusing to return the dogs.
She sought to have him held in contempt of court, which holds a penalty of a fine and/or imprisonment, and asked for an order compelling him to hand the dogs back.
As the consent order stated that each party would retain assets in their own names, the woman had to prove that the canines legally belonged to her.
Who holds legal ownership of the dogs?
Although both sides submitted evidence showing they had cared for the animals, the judge found that the real issue was who held legal ownership of the dogs.
The woman had to prove that she was the owner, by showing that she purchased the dogs, identified as X and Y in court papers, or that they were gifted to her.
X was purchased in 2016 by the woman's other ex-husband, identified as A.
Y was adopted by the defendant after he saw a friend's Facebook post advertising its adoption. The woman was not involved in the adoption process.
Court document did not specify the breed of the dogs.
The woman argued that both dogs were registered under her name in the animal licensing records issued by the Animal & Veterinary Service (AVS), and that she therefore had ownership over them.
The man contended that the dogs were not matrimonial assets, emphasising that they were not capable of valuation for division and should not be treated as commodities.
Dog license does not mean ownership
Judge Hidhir ultimately ruled that a dog licence does not confer ownership.
A witness testified that Y had been given to the defendant, confirming that he was the one who brought the dog into the household.
The judge also found that the true owner of X was A, the woman's other ex-husband, who had agreed that the defendant would care for it.
According to WhatsApp messages between A and the defendant, A had said the woman was supposed to return X to him or pay him $5,000. He also said the woman had "neglected" the dog for several days.
'A pawn to annoy me'
The defendant said he had gone to a clinic in January 2025 to obtain the dogs' medical records so that he could transfer them to another clinic nearer his new home. At the time, he and the woman were already divorced.
However, he was told that the woman had instructed the clinic not to disclose any information to him.
In his affidavit, the defendant said: "It dawned on me that ... she is merely using them (the dogs) as a pawn to annoy me."
