Surreal or real? The family court had to determine in a dispute regarding ownership of a dog

A woman filed a lawsuit to the family court in Nazareth against her ex-partner claiming that he "kidnapped" Tim, their miniature maltase dog, from her parent's house; she should be recognized as exclusive owner of the dog, and he should be returned home immediately.In her lawsuit, the woman gave detailed account of the devoted care she has given the dog during the cupule's life together and she also stated that she has phone messages proving that the dog was given to her as a gift by her ex-partner.The man claimed in the Statement of defense he submitted that the dog was bought using his personal money and that he never intended to give the dog as a present to his ex-partner. He added that he is taking action to change the ownership of the dog in the "National Database of Dogs" and for that reason it should be determined that he is the sole owner of the dog.During the hearings, the woman called mutual acquaintances to testify and they supported her claim for sole ownership of the dog.During their testimony, the couple's acquaintances testified that the man admitted to them that he took the dog because he wanted to take revenge on the woman due to her decision to end their relationship.Family court judge, Ronit Gurevitz ruled that changing ownership in the "National Database of Dogs" does not prove ownership of the dog.In addition, the judge ruled that due to the evidence provided by the plaintiff one can see that the defendant meant, whole heartedly, to give the dog as a present to his partner for her birthday.Furthermore, the judge felt that the plaintiff is attached to the dog with "every fiber of her sole" and that the dog receives "devoted and loving" care from her and her family.Eventually, the judge ruled that the woman's claim be accepted and the dog should be returned within 48 hours from judgment to the woman, while changing the details of ownership in the "National Database of Dogs" and she charged the man with court expenses in the sum of 15,000 NIS due to the defendant's lawyer's remarks during the hearings which "Do not respect the profession and are distasteful."