MUMBAI, April 30 -- The Bombay high court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by a hearing- and speech-impaired woman who sought the immediate restoration of her children's custody from her estranged husband. Observing that the family court is best suited to rule on the case, a division bench of justices Sarang Kotwal and SM Modak ordered the custody of the children, aged three and four, to remain with their father, citing their medical and emotional requirements. The petitioner, Pooja Dhanashetty, claimed she had separated from her husband, Abhijit Dhanashetty, in 2021 after allegedly being subjected to domestic abuse. She claimed that their children were with her till August 2024, when Abhijit took them away after a visit to a mall. Pooja then approached the Bombay high court, saying her children had been illegally detained by Abhijit and sought their immediate custody. Her counsel, advocate Prashant Pandey, highlighted the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, which state that the custody of children should remain with the mother. On the other hand, advocate Vikas Shivarkar, representing Abhijit, who is a Pune resident, stated that a custody case is pending before the family court in Mumbai, which would be the proper forum to decide the welfare and the custody of the kids. He added that Pooja is not in a position to look after the children, especially their daughter who is undergoing physiotherapy sessions five days a week in Pune. A division bench of justices Sarang Kotwal and SM Modak ruled that the father should continue having the children's custody as he is in a better position to look after them. It also noted that the estranged couple's daughter is suffering from an ailment that required regular medical treatment in Pune, and that Pooja hadn't ever started any treatment for her daughter in Mumbai. It would not be possible for the daughter to continue getting treatment in Pune if her custody is given to her mother, who lives in Mumbai, the bench added. Considering the age of the second child, the court also stated that it would not be proper to separate the siblings at this stage as they are growing together....