Telangana High Court Protects Family Pet in Legal Dispute

Hyderabad: Zorro, the two-month-old German Shepherd, had never failed to cheer the family up in the face of any adversity. Zorro is the apple of Dr Lokdeep Sharma’s eye, who runs a private clinic providing Ayurvedic treatment. The dog imparts emotional support through his cheerful nature to his 19-year-old daughter, Navya, who is also diabetic; despite not being a dog specifically for providing emotional support.

However, when a resident of Alpine Heights at Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, where Dr Lokdeep Sharma also lives, filed a complaint against them stating misconduct in handling the pet, Lokdeep did not waste a minute in taking steps to protect Zorro from legal procedures or even separation from his human family.

On the intervening night of June 13 and 14, the two residents had taken their dogs out for a walk. While Zorro was on leash, on seeing another dog, he broke free to indulge with him in a playful banter. However, in the meantime, the other resident slipped and experienced a fall. While Dr Sharma quickly got the dog under control, he also took the resident to a hospital for the damage done.

However, the resident filed a complaint under section 289 of the IPC at the Panjagutta police, claiming negligence by the pet owner. Later, GHMC officials had visited Dr Sharma’s house, demanding handing over the pet to them. When Lokdeep questioned their authority to take custody of his pet, they left his house. In order to preempt GHMC authorities from knocking at his door for Zorro, Dr Sharma filed a petition in the court.

Vikram Pooserla, senior advocate appearing on behalf of Dr Sharma’s counsel, submitted to the High Court that our country endorses the features of ahimsa and peaceful co-existence with animals, further noting that every animal should be treated with utmost compassion.

Following this, an opinion on the behaviour of the dog was taken from the residents. When the majority of the residents did not have a problem with the dog’s existence, the petitioner was now free from the fear of the dog being taken away and was directed to always have one family member accompanying the dog.