Saturday, March 29, 2025
A Russian woman, Nina Kutina, who was recently removed from a cave in Gokarna, Karnataka, has expressed anger and disappointment over her eviction. Claiming that the media has misrepresented her lifestyle, she insists that her family was living a peaceful, clean, and natural life, far from the way it’s been portrayed on television.
Speaking to PTI, Nina said, “Everything shown on TV is false. I have videos and photos that prove our life was clean and joyful. We were not dying in the jungle. I did not bring my daughters to die in the forest. They were happy, swimming in streams, learning art and painting, and sleeping in a beautiful place.”
Nina, who claims to be trained in art and Russian literature, added that she homeschooled her children and cooked healthy food on a gas stove. “I was giving my daughters a good life in nature,” she stated.
Now relocated from the cave, Nina says the current government facility where her family is being kept is uncomfortable, unsanitary, and lacks privacy. “We are given only plain rice to eat. We were robbed of many of our belongings, including the ashes of our son who died nine months ago,” she said.
Her anger also stems from the portrayal of her life by the media. “They threw us into filth. I feel humiliated,” she added.
The father of her children, Dror, traveled over three hours from Bengaluru to Tumakuru in an attempt to reunite with his family. However, he was not allowed to meet them. He told ANI that authorities demanded written permission from the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO).
“I was told to wait for the manager. After an hour, she said I couldn’t meet my children without documents from the FRRO,” Dror explained. He was asked to return the next morning with the proper paperwork.
The incident has sparked public curiosity and debate over alternative lifestyles, parental rights, and the role of authorities in cases involving foreign nationals. Nina’s fierce defense of her life in the cave and her current complaints raise questions about the treatment of unconventional families and the standards of government care facilities.
Though the authorities claim they acted in the interest of the children’s safety, Nina argues that their life in nature was not harmful but holistic and nurturing. The situation continues to unfold as the family remains under official supervision and the father attempts to regain access.
