The two daughters, however, appeared before the court and claimed to be residing at the centre out of their own choice.
The foundation argued that the court could not expand the scope of the case, but the court decided to probe the case as judges raised certain doubts regarding the case.
“We want to know why a person who had given his daughter in marriage and made her settle well in life is encouraging the daughters of others to tonsure their heads and live the life of a hermitess,” wondered Justice Sivagnanam.
The foundation argued that it could not understand the court’s concern when two independent adults are ‘free to choose’ their own path in life. “You will not understand because you are appearing for a particular party. But this court is neither for nor against anybody. We only want to do justice to the litigants,” replied Justice Subramaniam.
In his petition, the professor alleged that some kind of food and medicine is being administered at the centre to his daughters, which made them lose their cognitive abilities.
He also explained that his elder daughter is an M.Tech graduate from a university in the UK and was employed by the same institution for a salary of around ₹1 lakh in 2004. She began attending yoga classes at the foundation after her divorce in 2008. Soon, the woman’s younger sister also joined her to reside at the centre.