Court Rejects Woman’s Bid to Reclaim Dogs from Ex-Husband

A Singaporean woman’s attempt to reclaim two dogs from her ex-husband has been dismissed by a family court. The court ruled that the dogs were considered matrimonial assets, but the woman failed to prove ownership, resulting in an order for her to pay costs of S$3,500 (approximately US$2,690).

Background of the Case

The couple married in February 2020 and finalized their divorce in February 2024. Following the dissolution, a consent order was established in May 2024, outlining the division of their assets, including their matrimonial flat. In March 2025, the woman filed a court application, alleging that her ex-husband had not complied with the agreement concerning asset retention.

The dogs in question, referred to as X and Y in court documents, became central to the dispute. The woman argued that the dogs belonged to her and sought legal recourse to enforce their return. She contended that her ex-husband should face jail time or fines for contempt of court if he failed to comply.

Ownership Dispute

The court proceedings revealed that X, a male dog born in February 2015, was purchased by the woman’s previous husband, known as Mr A, around 2016. The current defendant, her ex-husband, claimed to have adopted Y, a male dog born in 2019, after seeing a rehoming advertisement on social media. He emphasized that his then-wife did not participate in the adoption process.

Testimony indicated that the defendant sought to obtain the dogs’ medical records from a clinic but was informed that the woman had instructed them not to provide any information. He argued that this was a clear act of bad faith and a failure to consider the dogs’ needs. In his affidavit, he wrote, “It dawned on me that, like her ex-husband, she is merely using them as a pawn to annoy me.”

The defendant further explained that he had moved out of their shared home in January 2025 and attempted to notify the woman. However, as she had blocked him on WhatsApp, he resorted to informing her family members instead.

The court heard from Mr A, who stated that he had given his consent for the defendant to care for X. Evidence presented included WhatsApp messages confirming that Mr A believed the woman had neglected X and was supposed to return him or pay a fee of S$5,000.

The woman maintained that she should retain ownership of the dogs based on dog licenses issued to her. Her ex-husband countered that the dogs should not be classified as divisible matrimonial assets and argued against their valuation as commodities.

Judge’s Findings

District Judge Muhammad Hidhir Abdul Majid ruled that the couple had not adequately addressed the ownership of the dogs during their divorce proceedings. He referred to a High Court precedent indicating that dogs can be considered matrimonial assets, with parties needing to agree on their division.

Despite both parties presenting evidence of their care and financial contributions towards the dogs, the judge emphasized that the primary issue was legal ownership. The woman was unable to provide sufficient evidence proving her claim. The judge concluded that the licensing of the dogs did not confer ownership on her.

He clarified that the defendant was indeed responsible for bringing Y into their shared household, which was corroborated by a witness. For X, the judge determined that Mr A was the rightful owner. The court found that the woman had not demonstrated that her ex-husband intentionally breached any court order.

Ultimately, the judge ruled that the defendant had acted under a reasonable belief regarding ownership and did not commit contempt of court. In light of the circumstances, the judge awarded costs to the defendant, emphasizing the ambiguity surrounding the couple’s agreement on the dogs.