NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Wednesday asked why Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra and lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai could not sit together and sort out the issue over their pet Henry. Dehadrai moved a plea before the court challenging a trial court order that restrains him from publicising an ongoing custody battle with Mahua, Bar and Bench reported.
As the court sought Mahua Moitra's response on the plea, Justice Majoj Jain asked why the parties could not settle the dog custody dispute out of court. "Why don't you sit together and sort it out? What relief is she seeking in the suit?" Justice Jain asked.
Advocate Sanjay Ghose, representing Dehadrai, argued that Mahua Moitra seeks shared custody of Henry. He added that Dehadrai is aggrieved by the trial court's March 2025 decision to restrict the parties from talking about the case. The order was passed by a Saket Court in March 2025.
Dehadrai contended that the Saket Court order violated his freedom of speech.
Mahua Moitra vs Jai Dehadrai over pet Henry
Mahua Moitra and Jai Dehadrai were reportedly in a relationship and owned Henry, a Rottweiler. As their relationship soured and Dehadrai accused Mahua Moitra of 'cash-for-query', Henry became a central character of their feud with both claiming that Henry belonged to them, and the other party 'kidnapped' him.
Dehadrai claimed he purchased Henry for Rs 75,000 and cared for him since he was 40 days old. Mahua Moitra alleged that Dehadrai trespassed into her residence and took Henry.
As the custody battle reached the court, the Saket Court order directed both Mahua and Dehadrai to "ensure that the present proceedings shall not be publicised in any manner." Dehadrai argued that by such a "sweeping gag order", he was restrained from being able to disclose the existence of Moitra's suit to anyone in the public domain. Dehadrai said he had earlier posted on X regarding the case without mentioning any case details.
"A frivolous case is filed against me, and I can’t talk about it, I can't discuss about it, I can't write about it? Where is it necessary to the fairness of the trial? She is an MP. Can an MP claim a higher right over a normal plaintiff? And say any case I file will be gagged?" Ghose argued on behalf of Dehadrai.
The Delhi HC has decided to hear the matter next on December 22. It noted that Moitra had not appeared for the hearing today despite being served advance notice. Therefore, the Court issued notice to her and sought her response.
As the court sought Mahua Moitra's response on the plea, Justice Majoj Jain asked why the parties could not settle the dog custody dispute out of court. "Why don't you sit together and sort it out? What relief is she seeking in the suit?" Justice Jain asked.
Advocate Sanjay Ghose, representing Dehadrai, argued that Mahua Moitra seeks shared custody of Henry. He added that Dehadrai is aggrieved by the trial court's March 2025 decision to restrict the parties from talking about the case. The order was passed by a Saket Court in March 2025.
Dehadrai contended that the Saket Court order violated his freedom of speech.
Mahua Moitra vs Jai Dehadrai over pet Henry
Mahua Moitra and Jai Dehadrai were reportedly in a relationship and owned Henry, a Rottweiler. As their relationship soured and Dehadrai accused Mahua Moitra of 'cash-for-query', Henry became a central character of their feud with both claiming that Henry belonged to them, and the other party 'kidnapped' him.
Dehadrai claimed he purchased Henry for Rs 75,000 and cared for him since he was 40 days old. Mahua Moitra alleged that Dehadrai trespassed into her residence and took Henry.
As the custody battle reached the court, the Saket Court order directed both Mahua and Dehadrai to "ensure that the present proceedings shall not be publicised in any manner." Dehadrai argued that by such a "sweeping gag order", he was restrained from being able to disclose the existence of Moitra's suit to anyone in the public domain. Dehadrai said he had earlier posted on X regarding the case without mentioning any case details.
"A frivolous case is filed against me, and I can’t talk about it, I can't discuss about it, I can't write about it? Where is it necessary to the fairness of the trial? She is an MP. Can an MP claim a higher right over a normal plaintiff? And say any case I file will be gagged?" Ghose argued on behalf of Dehadrai.
The Delhi HC has decided to hear the matter next on December 22. It noted that Moitra had not appeared for the hearing today despite being served advance notice. Therefore, the Court issued notice to her and sought her response.
You may also like
ED attaches Rs 2.22 crore assets in money laundering case in Vizag
Amazon surprise sale knocks up to 72% off Apple, Ninja and Google gadgets
Olivia Attwood squirms as she's grilled as she admits regret on live TV with Pete Wicks
'I work in charity shop and am sick of people making rude error when donating'
Ganeshotsav 2025: Massive Crowd Of Devotees Gathers To Seek Blessings Of Lalbaugcha Raja In Mumbai
