Court Denies Woman’s Request to Retrieve Dogs from Ex-Husband

A family court in Singapore has ruled against a woman seeking to reclaim two dogs from her ex-husband following their divorce. The court determined that the dogs were matrimonial assets but noted that the woman failed to prove her ownership. District Judge Muhammad Hidhir Abdul Majid dismissed her application for the return of the pets and ordered her to pay costs amounting to S$3,500 (approximately US$2,690).

The couple married in February 2020 and finalized their divorce in February 2024. After the divorce, a consent order outlined the division of their assets, including their matrimonial flat. The woman filed a court application in March 2025, alleging that her ex-husband was not complying with the order regarding the division of their assets, specifically the two dogs referred to as X and Y in court documents.

The court heard conflicting claims about the ownership of the dogs. According to the woman, both dogs were registered under her name with the Animal and Veterinary Service. However, the ex-husband argued that the dogs should not be deemed matrimonial assets and asserted that he had adopted Y, a male dog born in 2019, after responding to an adoption notice on social media. He contended that his then-wife had not participated in the adoption process.

The primary point of contention revolved around X, a male dog born in February 2015, who was purchased by the woman’s previous husband, identified as Mr A, around 2016. The ex-husband stated in his affidavit that Mr A had given him permission to care for X and that the woman had neglected the dog’s welfare. He provided WhatsApp messages where Mr A indicated that the woman had failed to fulfill her responsibilities towards X.

Judge Abdul Majid found that the ownership of X lay with Mr A, who had consented to the ex-husband taking care of the dog. The judge also noted that the licensing of the dogs alone did not establish ownership. Furthermore, he concluded that the woman did not demonstrate any evidence to support her claim of ownership, such as documentation proving she had purchased or received the dogs as gifts.

In his ruling, Judge Abdul Majid referred to a precedent involving a dog ownership dispute, affirming that pets can be considered matrimonial assets to be divided between parties. However, he emphasized that the couple had not addressed the issue of the dogs during their divorce proceedings.

The judge acknowledged that both parties had provided evidence of their involvement in the dogs’ care and expenses but maintained that ownership was the crux of the matter. He noted that there was insufficient evidence to show that the ex-husband had intentionally disregarded a court order regarding the dogs.

In light of these findings, the judge dismissed the woman’s application for contempt of court and upheld the ex-husband’s position regarding the dogs. The ruling reinforces the complexity surrounding pet ownership in divorce cases, particularly when ownership is contested. The court’s decision highlights the importance of clear agreements during divorce proceedings to prevent similar disputes in the future.