High Court Moves Forward After Lower Court Rejection On 19 Feb 2026 the Delhi High Court asked lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai to state his position on MP Mahua Moitra’s petition challenging a November 10 2025 district‑court order that denied her shared custody of her Rottweiler, Henry [1]. The petition seeks specific performance of an alleged oral agreement for joint custody after the former partner allegedly took the dog while trespassing [1]. The high court’s request follows the lower court’s finding that Moitra lacked sufficient evidence for an interim custody order [1].

Moitra Argues Long‑Term Co‑Parenting of Henry Moitra contended that Henry lived with her for two years, making her a “co‑parent” and that the interim order ignored this fact, depriving her of the pet’s love and affection [1]. She filed the appeal to overturn the November 2025 decision and obtain ten days per month custody [1]. Her claim rests on a verbal shared‑custody pact with Dehadrai, her former partner [1].

Counsel Seeks Dismissal Citing Lack of Prima Facie Evidence Dehadrai urged the bench to dismiss the petition at this early stage, arguing there is no legal basis to proceed [1]. He highlighted the district court’s conclusion that Moitra presented no prima facie case for monthly custody [1]. The counsel’s stance emphasizes the absence of documentary proof of the alleged agreement [1].

Oral Agreement and Alleged Trespass Form Core Dispute The lawsuit centers on an oral shared‑custody arrangement that Moitra says was breached when Dehadrai allegedly entered her residence without permission and took Henry [1]. The dispute therefore involves both custody rights and allegations of trespass [1]. Both parties rely on differing interpretations of the verbal pact [1].

High Court Review May Set Precedent for Pet Custody Litigation By examining the petition, the high court could clarify whether verbal agreements constitute enforceable joint‑custody contracts for pets [1]. The outcome may influence future pet‑custody cases across India [1]. Observers note the rarity of such matters reaching a high‑court level [1].