PANAJI
Venkat Raman’s lawyer Azhar said that the mother’s alleged reluctance to foster a healthy bond between her son and his father probably led to the shocking outcome.
As per the Bengaluru Family Court’s order in the child’s custody battle, Venkat Raman initially had the right to connect with his child through video calls. He was thereafter allowed to meet in court premises, then once in two weeks and eventually once a week at their designated meeting place.
The lawyer said that killing a child for this reason was not right.
“It is their personal matter. We don’t know what transpired between them... He did not do anything wrong but even if we agree that he was harassing, then what is the fault of the child? The child was not harassing,” he said while replying to questions on allegations against the father. “The anger should be on the father, why the child.”
After denying Venkat Raman to meet his child four Sundays, Suchana had mailed her estranged husband to meet their son at Sadashivnagar. However, she failed to show up on the agreed day and did not respond to calls and messages.
“She wanted a common place, in her words it was a ‘child safe space.’ For her, it was a coffee shop. But on the day when he left the world, she didn’t turn up at the decided venue (she was instead in Goa),” the lawyer said.
