New Delhi, Jul 8 The Delhi High Court on Wednesday said it will hear next week the dispute between TMC MP Mahua Moitra and lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai over the custody of a pet Rottweiler.
During the hearing, Justice Jasmeet Singh asked Dehadrai's senior counsel if he was agreeable to letting Moitra have visitation rights to the pet named Henry.
The senior counsel, however, indicated that such an arrangement was not possible.
"There is a very good reason, in the interest of the dog. There was an attempt to threaten me," he stated.
"We will hear it next week. Five minutes each (will be given to the parties)," the judge said.
Moitra filed the lawsuit against her former partner, Dehadrai, in the district court seeking specific performance of an oral agreement between them for shared custody of the dog.
Before the high court, she assailed the district court order which refused to pass an interim order on shared custody of the pet.
Moitra had sought Henry's custody for 10 days every month as an interim measure.
Dehadrai, on the other hand, challenged the district court's decision to dismiss his plea seeking rejection of the lawsuit in November 2025.
In her appeal in the high court, the TMC leader said in the interim order passed in November 2025, the district court failed to consider that Henry was given to her as her pet and he usually resided with her at her residence.
It stated that she has developed deep emotions equivalent to being a parent and the district court's order deprived her of the love and affection of a pet she raised for two years.
"The appellant was a co-parent of Henry. Henry primarily resided at the appellant's residence from where he was admittedly taken by the respondent when he was trespassing," it further alleged.
On November 10, 2025, the district court held that Moitra did not have a prima facie case in her favour for shared custody of Henry for 10 days of every month and refused to pass an interim order in her favour.
The district court said Moitra was not claiming the ownership of the dog and her emphasis on the emotional aspect of 'dog ownership' was misplaced as there was no concept of 'parent of a dog' in the eyes of law.
It further said there was no conversation to show that there was any sort of agreement between the parties regarding the shared custody of the dog.
