Madras High Court Asks Police Not To Harass Rippling Co-Founder Prasanna S In Enquiry Over Alleged Matrimonial Dispute With Wife

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan asked the police not to harass the petitioner in a complaint filed by his wife.

Prasanna has alleged that the police authorities had been conducting a roving enquiry into his whereabouts and were visiting his mother's house. He also alleged that the police had illegally arrested his friend, in an attempt to know his location and were threatening to register an FIR against him. He also informed the court that the police had raided his vacation home in Chennai and seized the phone of the caretaker, along with the CCTV cameras. Thus, citing urgency, he sought for directions to the police not to harass him in connection with the enquiry.

In his petition, Prasanna argued that his legal rights were being grossly violated by repeated interference and harassment by the police authorities at the behest of the estranged wife. He argued that the police authorities were becoming instrumentalities of intimidation, thereby causing gross violation of law and infringing upon his petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 21. He argued that the police had been issuing repeated summons, making intrusive inquiries, and threatening him with coercive action based on the false complaints made by his wife.

Prasanna informed the court that he got married on September 18, 2012, and had a son through the marriage, born in 2016. He added that the marriage suffered due to emotional cruelty and adultery by the wife and a divorce petition was also filed by him in the Chennai Family Court on the above grounds.

He added that after filing the divorce petition, the wife, as retaliation, filed for divorce before the US court and even took their son illegally to the US in wilful disobedience to an earlier order of the Singapore Court. Eventually, the US court recognised Prasanna as the lawful guardian and directed the wife to return the child to him.

He further informed that he had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the wife, agreeing to resolve all their existing and future matrimonial disputes, including those relating to custody, visitation, relocation, and dissolution of marriage. As per the MoU, the parties unequivocally consented to mutual divorce. It was also agreed that the parties would relocate to Chennai and that the minor child's passport and OCI card would be kept in a joint locker to prevent unilateral removal.

Prasanna alleged that though the wife arrived in Chennai with the child, she failed to deposit the child's travel documents. He also submitted that though the wife had willingly handed over the child to him, she has now filed false and malicious complaints before the police alleging that the child was forcefully taken away. He also alleged that the wife has failed to appear for proceedings before the Family court and has been attempting to evade the judicial process. He added that, instead, the wife was using extra-judicial tactics by misusing the police force.

Prasanna alleged that the police complaints were filed with the sole intention of harassing him and unlawfully wresting custody of the minor child. Thus, he said that the court's intervention was necessary to ensure that his personal liberty and parental rights were secured and the public confidence in the sanctity of judicial proceedings was upheld.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Senior Advocate A Ramesh, Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra and Advocate Aadarsh Kothari, Advocate Deepika Murali, Advocate Ashwin Ramesh, Advocate Anila Rajendran, Advocate Karthik Sundaram, Advocate Nivea SR, Advocate Harinarayanan K, Advocate Raja M

Case Title: Prasanna Sankaranarayanan v The State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 122

Case No: Crl OP 9308 of 2025