The Delhi High Court has sought Mahua Moitra’s response to a plea filed by advocate Jai Dehadrai challenging a trial court order in the custody dispute over their pet Rottweiler Henry. Dehadrai urged the court to dismiss Moitra’s plea and requested an early hearing before April 29.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice to Mahua Moitra in a plea filed by advocate Jai Dehadrai regarding the ongoing custody dispute over a pet Rottweiler dog named Henry.
Dehadrai has approached the High Court challenging a trial court order that dismissed his application seeking rejection of Moitra’s suit in the pet custody matter.
The case was heard by a Bench led by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri. During the hearing, Dehadrai appeared in person and requested the Court to hear his plea before April 29, the date when a related appeal filed by Moitra is scheduled for hearing.
Dehadrai told the Court that his application directly affects the foundation of the dispute and therefore should be decided first.
“The same date that my rejection of plaint application is dismissed, the Order 39 (interim injunction) application under Civil Procedure Code is also dismissed in my favour. Trial court gives a finding that there is no contract. I want a stay on the trial court proceedings,”
he submitted before the Court.
However, the Bench responded that it could not proceed in the absence of Moitra.
“Not in their (Moitra’s) absence please,”
the Court replied.
Dehadrai then urged the Court to formally issue notice in the matter and list it for hearing before Moitra’s appeal.
“Please issue notice. It goes to the root of the suit. Their (Moitra’s) appeal is (listed) on April 29. I am going to the root of the suit, please grant me a date prior to April 29,”
he argued.
When the Court suggested July 27 as the next possible date of hearing, Dehadrai strongly objected and said the delay would be unfair to him.
“That is complete injustice to me. They (Moitra) asked for a short date and were given by court. This goes to the substratum,”
he said.
The Court reminded Dehadrai that he had already agreed to the earlier listing date in the connected matter.
“I gave you (Dehadrai is a party to Moitra’s appeal) a short date. You gave consent, you were there (as a respondent in the connected appeal),”
the Court pointed out.
Dehadrai denied that he had given consent and insisted that his plea must be heard first.
“I did not give consent. My application has to be heard first. This is injustice to me. My Lord, please issue notice,”
he maintained.
After hearing the submissions, the High Court issued notice and sought Moitra’s response in the case. The matter has now been listed for further hearing on May 14.
Earlier, the case was listed before another Bench headed by Justice Anish Dayal. However, Justice Dayal recused himself from hearing the matter on February 26.
The dispute relates to an ongoing custody battle over the pet dog Henry, which is currently pending before a Saket court in Delhi. Dehadrai had earlier filed an application before the trial court seeking dismissal of Moitra’s suit related to the custody of the dog. After the trial court rejected his plea, he approached the High Court challenging that decision.
Moitra has also filed a connected appeal before the High Court against a trial court order passed in November 2025. In that order, the trial court refused to grant her interim custody of the dog for ten days every month.
In addition, another petition filed by Dehadrai is also pending before the High Court. In that plea, he has challenged a trial court order that restrains him from publicly discussing or sharing details about the ongoing custody dispute.
The legal battle between Moitra and Dehadrai is part of a larger series of disputes between the two over the past few years.
Earlier, Dehadrai had accused Moitra of accepting bribes from businessman Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for raising certain questions in Parliament. Following these allegations, Nishikant Dubey, a Member of Parliament from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), also filed a complaint before the Lok Sabha Speaker.
The Lok Sabha Ethics Committee examined the allegations and recommended Moitra’s expulsion from Parliament. Acting on this recommendation, the Lok Sabha expelled Moitra on December 8, 2023.
Moitra has consistently denied the allegations. She stated that Hiranandani is her friend and there was no quid pro quo involved. According to her, the accusations were politically motivated and part of a campaign against her.
On the other hand, Dehadrai and Dubey claimed that Moitra had shared full access to her official Lok Sabha login credentials with Hiranandani. They alleged that the businessman used this access to upload parliamentary questions according to his interests.
Following these accusations, Moitra filed a defamation case against Dehadrai and Dubey before the Delhi High Court. However, in March 2024, the High Court refused to grant her interim relief.
The Court observed that the allegations suggesting Moitra shared her parliamentary login credentials with Hiranandani and received gifts from him were not “totally false”.
That defamation case is still pending before the Delhi High Court.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Mahua Moitra
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
