Top News

0

The dispute between Mahua Moitra and Jai Anant Dehadrai reached the court.

Kolkata. The ongoing dispute between Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and her former partner Jai Ananth Dehadrai has now reached the High Court over the custody of their pet dog ‘Henry’. Moitra has filed a petition in the Delhi High Court, in which she has challenged the order of the Saket Court, in which she was denied interim custody of the dog.

Delhi High Court issued notice

The hearing of this case took place in the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri. The court has issued notice to Dehadrai and is waiting for his response. The next hearing has been fixed for April 29. Dehadrai himself appeared during the hearing and demanded dismissal of the petition at the preliminary stage itself.

background of legal battle

This dispute has started from a personal issue and has reached legal grounds. This fight over Henry’s custody is a part of the political and legal conflict between the two. Many controversial issues have emerged since their relationship ended.

Impact of cash-for-query charges

Jai Ananth Dehadrai had earlier alleged that Moitra received benefits from businessman Darshan Hiranandani for asking questions in Parliament. It also claimed that the MP’s Lok Sabha login access was shared so that necessary questions could be posted.

On the basis of these allegations, the Ethics Committee of the Lok Sabha conducted an investigation and after recommendation, Mahua Moitra was expelled from the House on 8 December 2023.

Moitra termed the allegations as political vendetta

Mahua Moitra denied all the allegations and said that this was a result of political vendetta against her. He admitted his friendship with the businessman, but categorically denied being involved in any kind of transaction.

Hearing going on in defamation case

Mahua Moitra had filed a defamation case against Dehadrai and BJP MP Nishikant Dubey. In March 2024, the Delhi High Court had refused to grant him interim relief, saying that the investigation into the allegations was still ongoing and the matter was sub-judice.