A woman who sought to have her ex-husband return two dogs she claimed were hers — and for him to be jailed or fined for contempt of court if he failed to do so — has lost her case.
In a judgment made public on Thursday (Nov 13), a Family Court ruled that the dogs were matrimonial assets and that the woman had failed to prove she was their legal owner. District Judge Muhammad Hidhir Abdul Majid dismissed her application and ordered her to pay her ex-husband S$3,500 (US$2,690) in costs.
Background of the Case
According to Channel News Asia, the couple married in February 2020 and divorced in February 2024. In May 2024, a consent order was recorded on the ancillary matters of their divorce, including the division of their matrimonial flat and other assets.
Under the consent order, both parties were to retain their respective assets in their own names.
However, in March 2025, the woman applied to the court, claiming that her ex-husband had not complied with this clause. The dispute centered on two dogs, referred to in court as X and Y, which she said were her property.
She alleged that her ex-husband refused to return the dogs, and sought a court order declaring him in contempt. She asked that he be ordered to return the dogs or face jail or a fine, and that he pay her legal costs.
The Dogs in Question
Dog X, a male born in February 2015, had been purchased around 2016 by the woman’s previous ex-husband, identified in court papers as Mr A.
Dog Y, also male and born in 2019, was adopted by the defendant after seeing a Facebook post from a friend who was rehoming the animal. He said his then-wife had no part in the adoption process.
After the divorce, in January 2025, the man moved out of the matrimonial home with both dogs. He said he had tried to inform his ex-wife, but as she had blocked him on WhatsApp, he contacted her brother and sister-in-law instead to notify them that he had moved and taken the dogs.
The defendant also said he visited a veterinary clinic that month to obtain the dogs’ medical records so he could transfer them to a clinic nearer to his new home. However, the clinic refused, saying the woman had instructed them not to share any information with him.
“This act was in bad faith and disregarded the dogs’ welfare,” he said in his affidavit, adding that “it dawned on me that, like her ex-husband (Mr A), she is merely using them as a pawn to annoy me.”
Arguments in Court
As per CNA, the woman argued that she should retain the dogs as they were licensed under her name with the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS).
Her ex-husband countered that the dogs were not matrimonial assets capable of valuation or division, and should not be treated as commodities. He maintained that his ex-wife had always regarded the dogs as his and that the issue was never disputed during divorce proceedings.
The defendant said Mr A, the woman’s earlier ex-husband, had explicitly allowed him to keep X. WhatsApp messages between Mr A and the defendant were produced in court, showing that Mr A had told the woman to either return X to him or pay him S$5,000 as agreed. Mr A also said that the woman had “neglected” the dog, leaving it alone for days.
Judge’s Findings
Judge Hidhir referred to a previous High Court decision involving a pet ownership dispute, where it was held that dogs can be considered matrimonial assets. He noted that divorcing parties could specify in their settlement who would keep such animals or how they should be dealt with, such as through transfer or sale.
However, in this case, the consent order from the divorce did not mention the dogs at all. The judge said that while both parties presented evidence of caring and paying for the dogs, the crux of the matter was who the legal owner was.
The woman, he said, had to prove ownership — such as by showing that she had purchased or been gifted the dogs — but she provided no such evidence.
The court ruled that the AVS dog licences in her name did not establish ownership.
The judge found that Y was brought into the household by the defendant and that this was corroborated by a witness who confirmed she had given the dog to him. As for X, ownership rested with Mr A, though he had permitted the defendant to keep and care for the dog.
The judge determined that the woman failed to prove her ex-husband had intentionally breached a court order. He accepted that the defendant genuinely believed the woman was not the rightful owner of X, given Mr A’s messages, and that Y had been given to him directly.
There was also no evidence that the couple had discussed or agreed on how the dogs should be handled during their divorce proceedings, and the animals were not mentioned in her statement of claim. As such, the judge ruled that the ambiguous clause in the consent order should be interpreted in the defendant’s favour.
Under Section 21 of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act, a person is not guilty of contempt of court if their non-compliance resulted from an “honest and reasonable failure” to understand their obligation.
The judge found this applied to the defendant and dismissed the woman’s application, ordering her to pay S$3,500 in costs to her ex-husband.
Image via Google
- Man Maintains Secret Second Family for 30 Years; Jailed 17 Months for Bigamy
- ICA Officer’s Corruption Case Leads to Jail for Indian Student Who Sought Help With Visit Pass
- Exchange Student Jailed After Sneaking Into F1 Singapore Grand Prix Paddock Club
- Shocking : NSF pleads guilty to offering money to underage boys for sexual acts
- Tanjong Pagar U-21 Player Who Knocked Opponent Unconscious Faces Court
