The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notice to Jai Anant Dehadrai, the former partner of MP Mahua Moitra, after the Trinamool Congress leader challenged a lower court order that denied her interim custody of the pet Rottweiler, Henry.
The dog is currently with Dehadrai, a lawyer.
While Justice Manoj Ohri initially was posting the matter for hearing next in May, Moitra’s counsel, senior advocate Avi Singh, requested for an earlier date. She reasoned before the court that the “shelf life of this pet is only a few more years”.
Court documents indicate Henry is around five-and-half years of age.
The HC will hear the matter next on April 29.
The Saket court, in its November 10 order last year, had dismissed Moitra’s application for shared custody of the dog, observing that under current Indian law, pets are not recognised as “wards” or “children”, and there is no legal concept of a “pet parent”.
The court ruled that the matter hinged on ownership, noting that Dehadrai had purchased the dog. However, before the HC, Moitra has contended that the pet was paid for by Dehadrai on her behalf.
In her appeal, Moitra has argued that pets cannot be treated as mere “movable property” akin to a piece of furniture. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2014 Animal Welfare Board of India vs A Nagaraja judgment, which recognised the dignity of animals, she contended that the court must exercise its equitable jurisdiction to ensure the pet is not deprived of the affection of a caregiver who raised him.
Story continues below this ad
Referring to emails Moitra and Dehadrai exchanged discussing the sharing arrangement for Henry, and submitting that email exchanges between parties can constitute a valid contract in the absence of a formal written agreement, Moitra is seeking that the Saket court’s November 2025 order be set aside.
This high-profile tussle has spotlighted a grey area in Indian law: who gets the pet animal when a couple separates?
Pets as property, not children
The fundamental hurdle in such cases is that Indian statutes do not view pets as sentient beings with a right to be parented. “In India, there is no definitive law dealing with pet custody,” said Anshul Gupta, an Advocate on Record at the Supreme Court. “Pets are considered property in Indian law for all practical purposes.”
Consequently, disputes are often adjudicated based on proof of purchase. As Jasmine Damkewala, also an Advocate on Record at the SC with experience in family and matrimonial law, explained, “The legal right is vested in the person who is the formal adopter or the formal purchaser.” If one partner holds the receipt, they hold the stronger legal claim, regardless of who spent more time caring for the animal, she said.
Story continues below this ad
In the Moitra-Dehadrai case, the lower court specifically noted that Moitra had not claimed to have paid for the dog – which weighed against her claim for interim relief. In Moitra’s plea before HC, she has impressed that on August 9, 2023, Henry’s registration was formally transferred in Moitra’s name and all vet records reflect Moitra as the owner and primary caregiver.
In cases where the couple is not married, Gupta noted that the custody of the pet is usually decided based on factors like “who purchased the pet, who pays for the expenses of the pet and who takes care of the pet”.
‘Best interest’ standard
However, the strict property interpretation is slowly being challenged by the concept of “best interest”, a principle usually reserved for child custody battles.
Malavika Rajkotia, a prominent family and divorce lawyer, pointed to the case of a Mumbai-based couple who divorced in 2020 as an example of how this can work outside the courtroom. The couple drew up a detailed settlement for the custody of their two pet dogs. While the former husband was given dominant custody, the former wife was allowed to keep them for a month each three times a year. The settlement also required the parties to inform each other before taking the dogs on vacation.
Story continues below this ad
Damkewala noted that courts and mediating couples are increasingly looking at such “joint custody” arrangements. This involves sharing time and taking joint decisions regarding the pet’s medical needs and upbringing, much like separated parents would for a child. Damkewala said she has drafted divorce settlements agreements that specifically include provisions for the maintenance of pets, covering expenses for vaccines, trainers and health.
Yet, when parties cannot agree on an arrangement for a pet and amicable settlements fail, it often indicates, Rajkotia said, that “the issue is more about their animosity toward each other than it is about the actual welfare of the pet”.
In such scenarios, the animal becomes a pawn in a larger battle of egos. “When it doesn’t work, these cases become a battle of ownership,” Rajkotia said. She noted that if both parties truly cared for the animal’s welfare, a shared arrangement would be the logical outcome; the inability to reach one suggests the pet is being used as a “symbol of something else altogether”.
