The controversy centres on the custody and visitation of a Rottweiler named Henry. Mahua Moitra filed a petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court order that denied her interim custody of the dog for ten days each month. In response, Jai Anant Dehadrai filed a counter‑petition seeking to overturn the trial court’s dismissal of his objection to Moitra’s request for shared custody. Both parties have been engaged in related litigation for several years.
The trial court’s refusal to grant Moitra interim custody prompted her to approach the High Court, while Dehadrai’s plea contests the trial court’s decision to reject his opposition to shared custody. The High Court is therefore seized of two interconnected applications concerning the same animal.
Proceedings Before the Delhi High Court
On 7 July 2026, the Bench, presided over by Justice Jasmeet Singh, directed the parties to explore a mutually acceptable arrangement for Moitra’s access to Henry. The Court suggested a limited visitation schedule, proposing that Moitra be allowed to meet the dog for one hour in a public park under the supervision of a local commissioner, with a total of five hours per week.
When the matter was listed for hearing on the present date, Justice Singh sought the position of Dehadrai’s counsel, Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria, on the proposed visitation rights. Billimoria responded that the question of visitation did not arise in his client’s case, asserting that there existed a substantial reason to oppose any such arrangement. He elaborated that an attempt had been made to intimidate him, citing a visit by the Station House Officer of Barakhamba Road police station accompanied by five constables, who allegedly threatened to register a First Information Report against him. Billimoria characterised this as an act of criminal intimidation.
In rebuttal, Senior Advocate Shyel Trehan, appearing for Moitra, informed the Court that the complaint of intimidation had already been withdrawn by Dehadrai. The Bench then pressed Billimoria to clarify whether he would be amenable to any form of visitation arrangement. Although Billimoria attempted to explain his objections, the Court indicated that it would hear further submissions from both sides before reaching a determination.
Consequently, the matter has been adjourned for detailed arguments next week, allowing the parties to present additional evidence and legal precedent concerning pet custody, visitation rights, and the relevance of alleged intimidation to the Court’s discretion.
Legal Issues Under Consideration
The primary legal question before the High Court is whether Moitra is entitled to interim custody or visitation rights over Henry, notwithstanding the trial court’s earlier refusal. The Court must examine the scope of its authority under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and analogous principles applied to animals in family disputes, assessing the welfare of the dog as the paramount consideration.
Additionally, the Court will need to evaluate the impact of the alleged intimidation on the parties’ ability to negotiate an amicable settlement. While Billimoria raised the issue of criminal intimidation, Trehan’s assertion that the complaint has been withdrawn introduces a factual dispute that the Court may need to resolve before weighing its relevance to the custody determination.
The High Court’s deliberations will also consider the history of litigation between Moitra and Dehadrai, including prior allegations concerning parliamentary conduct and the subsequent expulsion of Moitra from the Lok Sabha in December 2023 following the Ethics Committee’s recommendation. Although these matters are distinct from the pet custody dispute, they form part of the broader context in which the parties have interacted.
Implications of the Forthcoming Decision
The outcome of the forthcoming hearing could set a precedent for how Indian courts address disputes over companion animals when relationships between former partners break down. A ruling in favour of visitation or interim custody would affirm the judiciary’s willingness to recognise the emotional bond between owners and pets, potentially influencing future cases involving shared custody of animals.
Conversely, if the Court sides with Dehadrai’s opposition, it may underscore the threshold required to override a trial court’s denial of access, particularly when allegations of intimidation or other extraneous factors are introduced. The decision will also clarify the extent to which ancillary claims, such as those of criminal intimidation, can affect ancillary relief in family‑type proceedings involving pets.
At present, the parties await the Bench’s detailed order, which is expected to elucidate the legal principles applied and the balancing test employed in arriving at a final determination on Moitra’s access to Henry.