Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra has moved the Delhi High Court seeking custody of her pet Rottweiler, Henry, after a Saket district court denied her interim plea for shared custody. The case, which has attracted widespread public attention, pits Moitra against her former partner, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, in what has become one of the most unusual yet emotionally charged legal disputes in recent times. The High Court has issued notice to Dehadrai, asking for his response to Moitra’s petition.
Background of the Case
- Lower Court Decision: On November 10, 2025, the Saket district court rejected Moitra’s plea for interim custody of Henry for 10 days each month.
- High Court Appeal: Moitra challenged this decision, calling it “bad in law and fact,” and sought relief from the Delhi High Court.
- Notice Issued: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri issued notice to Dehadrai, directing him to respond to Moitra’s petition.
- Public Interest: The case has drawn attention not only because of the personalities involved but also due to the unusual nature of a custody battle over a pet.
Legal Dimensions
| Aspect | Mahua Moitra’s Position | Jai Anant Dehadrai’s Position | Court’s Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody Request | 10 days per month with Henry | Opposed shared custody, sought dismissal | Saket court rejected plea |
| Appeal Grounds | Claimed order was flawed in law and fact | Argued Moitra’s appeal lacked merit | Delhi HC issued notice |
| Broader Dispute | Emotional bond with pet | Legal ownership and care responsibility | Pending hearing |
Emotional and Social Context
Pets often become central to family disputes, and Henry’s case highlights how emotional attachment intersects with legal ownership. Moitra has argued that Henry is not just a pet but part of her family, while Dehadrai has maintained that he is the rightful custodian.
This case also raises broader questions:
- Should pets be treated like property or family members in custody disputes?
- How should courts balance emotional bonds against legal ownership?
- Could this case set a precedent for future pet custody battles in India?
Public and Political Reactions
- Support for Moitra: Many of her supporters view the case as symbolic of her resilience and personal struggles.
- Criticism: Opponents argue that the case is being politicized and distracts from larger issues.
- Legal Community: Lawyers and activists are debating whether Indian courts should evolve frameworks for pet custody similar to child custody laws.
Comparative Perspective: Pet Custody in Global Context
| Country | Legal Approach | Key Feature |
|---|---|---|
| USA | Pets often treated as property, but some states consider “best interest of the pet” | Emotional well-being considered |
| UK | Pets are property under law | Custody depends on ownership documents |
| India | No specific pet custody law | Courts rely on property and ownership principles |
| Switzerland | Recognizes animals as sentient beings | Custody disputes consider welfare |
Analytical Perspective
The case underscores the growing importance of animal rights and welfare in Indian jurisprudence. While traditionally pets have been treated as property, evolving social norms suggest a shift towards recognizing them as family members. If the Delhi High Court acknowledges Henry’s welfare as central to the dispute, it could mark a turning point in Indian legal history.
Disclaimer
This article is a synthesized news analysis based on publicly available reports and legal updates. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not represent official court statements or judgments. Readers are advised to follow verified legal sources for formal updates on the case.
