New Delhi [India], September 3 : The Delhi High Court has issued notice to TMC MP Mahua Moitra on an appeal against an order of the trial court filed by Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, directing him not to publicise the matter.
This matter is related to the custody of a pet Rottweiler dog, Henry, and is pending before the Saket court.
Justice Manoj Jain issued a notice to MP Mahua Moitra and asked her to file a response. Senior advocate Sanjoy Ghosh appeared for Dehadrai.
During the hearing, the bench asked the parties, " Why don't you sit together and sort it out?" The Court also asked what relief she is asking for in the suit.
It is stated that the Ex-Parte Order of March 06, 2025, passed by the Trial Court is erroneous, unreasoned, arbitrary, unreasonable, unconstitutional, and wholly perverse because it imposes a pre-censorship and a sweeping alleged order on the appellant Jai Anant Dehadrai (Defendant before the trial court) and the media, and, without any justification whatsoever, categorically stating that "both the parties to the Suit are directed to ensure that the present proceedings shall not be publicised in any form," without offering any reasons whatsoever.
The plea before the High Court stated that Moitra had filed a custody suit against the Dehadrai, over a pet-dog named "Henry" which was purchased by Dehadrai in 2021.
It is the contention of Moitra in her suit that, owing to her friendship at the time with Dehadrai, she is entitled to joint custody of the pet dog, the plea said.
Petitioner Dehadrai has stated that on the first day of the hearing of Moitra's suit in the trial court, without serving an advance copy and also without any notice being served upon the appellant, she obtained an ex parte alleged order on the appellant from being able to disclose the existence of the suit to anyone in the public domain, effectively a sweeping alleged order.
It is further stated that the trial court offered absolutely no reasoning or justification whatsoever in passing this "No-Reporting" by the media.
It is also stated that the trial judge who passed the impugned order passed this injunction order, which is directly prejudicial to the Constitutional rights of the appellant.
The appellant has argued that the order was passed despite the application seeking an injunction not containing the said prayer (it was an oral prayer made by the Counsel of the defendant).
It is also argued that such an order is impermissible in view of the circulars of the Delhi High Court of November 9, 2021, which require all daily orders to be uploaded unless the case comes within the ambit of public order/national security or sexual offences.
It has been further argued that the appellant was not present before the court. In fact, he had not even been served a copy of the application in question.