SC Rejects Plea Against Repatriation of Russian Woman, Kids

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Repatriation of Russian Woman and Daughters Found in Gokarna Cave

Bench questions man claiming to be father, calls it “publicity litigation”

Karnataka High Court order allowing travel documents for return to Russia upheld

By Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: October 07, 2025:

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a plea filed by an Israeli national who claimed to be the father of two minor Russian girls found living with their mother in a cave near Gokarna, Karnataka. The apex court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s order permitting the Union government to issue travel documents for the family’s repatriation to Russia.

The case has drawn widespread attention due to its unusual circumstances: a Russian woman, Nina Kutina, and her two daughters were discovered living in a cave in the Ramatirtha Hills after overstaying their visas and running out of money. The Supreme Court bench, led by Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, strongly criticized the petitioner, Dror Shlomo Goldstein, for approaching the court belatedly and questioned his rights over the children.

The Discovery in Gokarna

On July 11, 2025, Karnataka police on routine patrol found 40-year-old Russian national Nina Kutina and her two daughters, aged five and six, living in a cave in the Ramatirtha Hills near Gokarna.

The family had reportedly been living there for nearly two months.
They had no valid travel or residence documents, as their visas had expired in 2017.
Local authorities shifted them to a Foreigners Restriction Centre for Women in Karnataka.

The case quickly gained attention, with questions raised about how a foreign national and her children managed to survive in such conditions without official papers.

Karnataka High Court’s Order

On September 26, 2025, the Karnataka High Court directed the Union government to issue emergency travel documents for the family’s return to Russia.

The court noted that the Russian consulate had already issued short-term emergency papers valid from September 25 to October 9.
It also recorded that Kutina herself had expressed her wish to return to Russia with her daughters.
The High Court emphasized that repatriation was in the best interests of the children, who had been living in unsafe conditions.

The petitioner, Dror Shlomo Goldstein, challenged this order in the Supreme Court, claiming to be the father of the children.

Supreme Court Hearing

When the matter came before the Supreme Court, the bench was highly critical of Goldstein’s conduct.

Justice Surya Kant asked: “What is your right? Who are you?”
The bench demanded official documents proving paternity, which the petitioner failed to produce.
Justice Kant further remarked: “Why should we not direct your deportation?”
Justice Bagchi added: “Publicity litigation. What were you doing when your children were living in a cave?”

The court also questioned why Goldstein was living in Goa while his alleged wife and daughters were in distress in Karnataka.

Faced with the court’s disapproval, Goldstein’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the plea, which the Supreme Court allowed.

Larger Observations by the Court

Before closing the matter, Justice Surya Kant made a broader observation:

“This country has become a haven… anybody comes and stays.”

The remark highlighted concerns about foreign nationals overstaying visas and living in India without proper documentation.

The Petitioner’s Claims

Goldstein, an Israeli businessman living in Goa, claimed that:

He was the father of the two girls.
He had been supporting the family financially for years.
Deporting the children would violate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

However, the State countered these claims by pointing out:

The mother herself wanted to return to Russia.
The Russian government had already issued emergency travel papers.
DNA tests had confirmed the children’s identity, and Moscow was ready to receive them.

Public and Legal Reactions

The case has sparked debate on several fronts:

Humanitarian Concerns: Many sympathized with the plight of the Russian woman and her daughters, who were forced to live in a cave due to lack of resources.
Legal Concerns: Experts noted that the case underscores the importance of valid travel documents and the legal consequences of overstaying visas.
Judicial Concerns: The Supreme Court’s strong remarks against “publicity litigation” reflect its growing impatience with petitions lacking merit.

Broader Implications

This case raises important questions about:

Immigration Control: How foreign nationals without valid documents manage to stay in India for years.
Child Welfare: The need to prioritize the best interests of children in custody and repatriation cases.
Judicial Efficiency: The role of courts in filtering out frivolous or publicity-driven petitions.

It also highlights the diplomatic cooperation between India and Russia in ensuring the safe return of citizens.

Timeline of Events

Date	Event
April 2017	Kutina’s visa expired
July 11, 2025	Kutina and daughters found in Gokarna cave
Sept 26, 2025	Karnataka High Court allows repatriation
Sept 25–Oct 9, 2025	Russian consulate issues emergency travel papers
Oct 6, 2025	Supreme Court dismisses plea, allows repatriation

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the plea clears the way for the repatriation of Nina Kutina and her daughters to Russia. The case, while unusual, underscores critical issues of immigration law, child welfare, and judicial responsibility.

By rejecting what it termed “publicity litigation,” the court reaffirmed that the best interests of the children and the sovereign right of nations to regulate foreign nationals must take precedence.

For Kutina and her daughters, the ruling offers a chance to return home safely. For India, it serves as a reminder of the need for stricter enforcement of visa rules and greater vigilance in cases involving vulnerable foreign nationals.