New Delhi: Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra has approached the Delhi High Court against a Saket court order which denied her interim custody of pet Rottweiler dog named Henry, as reported by Bar And Bench.
Moitra’s plea for Henry’s interim custody for 10 days every month was rejected by the Saket Court on November 10, 2025.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri on Thursday issued notice to Moitra’s ex-boyfriend advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai and sought his response to the plea.
The case will be heard next on April 29.
Appearing before the Court in person on Thursday Dehadrai said that Moitra’s case should be dismissed in limine.
Dehadrai and Moitra have been engaged in a series of legal battles for the past few years.
Dehadrai had earlier alleged that Moitra accepted bribes from businessman Darshan Hiranandani for asking questions in Parliament. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey also filed a complaint before the Lok Sabha Speaker about the same.
Based on these allegations, the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee suggested Moitra’s removal from the lower house, following which she was expelled from the Parliament on December 8, 2023.
Moitra rebuffed the allegations saying that that
Hiranandani is her friend and there has been no quid pro quo. She said that allegations are part of political vendetta.
On the other hand, Dehadrai and Dubey claimed that Moitra gave complete access to her online Lok Sabha account to Hiranandani who used the same to post parliamentary questions of his liking.
As many as 50 of the 61 questions Moitra asked in the Parliament were by Hiranandani, it was alleged.
Moitra subsequently sued Dehadrai and Dubey for defamation. However, the TMC leader’s plea for interim injunction was rejected by the high court in March 2024.
It held that the allegations that Moitra shared her parliamentary login credential with Darshan Hiranandani and received gifts from him were not “totally false”.
The matter is still pending before the Court.
In her appeal against the trial court order, Moitra has argued that the trial court order is bad in law and fact as it failed to consider that Henry was given to her as her pet ” to be loved and cared for, and resided primarily at her [Moitra’s residence, unless she was out of station for her duties in her constituency, during which time Henry resided with the Respondent [Dehadrai]”
“The impugned order does not record any finding that the Defendant/Respondent [Dehadrai] is the owner of the dog, and wrongly considers that payment is sufficient to show ownership, when there is specific evidence filed with the plaint, and not contradicted, that the pet was paid for by the Respondent on behalf of the Appellant,” she stated.
Moitra’s appeal has been filed through advocates Dhruv Malik, Kirti Raj, Rudraksh Mathur and Shiven Verma.