Madras High Court Directs Police Not to Harass Rippling Co-Founder Prasanna S in Matrimonial Dispute Investigation
The Madras High Court has directed Tamil Nadu police not to harass Rippling co-founder Prasanna S in connection with an enquiry regarding a matrimonial dispute with his estranged wife. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan issued this directive, stating that the authorities should refrain from causing undue distress to the petitioner.
Prasanna alleged that police officers had been conducting unwarranted investigations into his whereabouts. He claimed that they visited his mother’s residence and even detained his friend to extract information about his location. Additionally, he informed the court that law enforcement officers raided his vacation home in Chennai, confiscated the caretaker’s phone, and seized CCTV footage. Concerned about the violation of his rights, Prasanna sought urgent intervention from the court.
Claims of Harassment and Violation of Fundamental Rights
In his petition, Prasanna argued that the police were acting beyond their jurisdiction and were being misused as a tool of intimidation by his estranged wife. He stated that such actions grossly violated his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. He further claimed that law enforcement officials had repeatedly issued summons, conducted intrusive inquiries, and even threatened him with coercive measures based on what he described as false allegations.
Read also:- Madras High Court Slams Special Court for Arbitrary Denial of Appearance Exemption to Accused
Matrimonial Dispute and International Custody Battle
Prasanna revealed that he married his wife on September 18, 2012, and that they had a son together in 2016. However, their marriage faced significant issues, including emotional cruelty and alleged adultery by his wife, which led him to file a divorce petition in the Chennai Family Court.
Following his divorce petition, Prasanna's wife filed for divorce in the United States and allegedly took their son there against an earlier order issued by the Singapore Court. Eventually, the US court recognized Prasanna as the legal guardian and ordered the wife to return the child to him.
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and Allegations of Breach
Prasanna informed the court that he and his wife had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to settle all existing and future disputes, including matters related to child custody, visitation rights, relocation, and divorce proceedings. As per the agreement, both parties consented to a mutual divorce and agreed to relocate to Chennai. It was further stipulated that the minor child's passport and Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card would be stored in a joint locker to prevent unilateral relocation.
However, Prasanna alleged that after arriving in Chennai with their child, his wife failed to deposit the travel documents as agreed. He claimed that despite willingly handing over custody of the child to him, she later filed false police complaints, alleging that the child was taken away forcefully. He also accused her of deliberately avoiding court proceedings while misusing law enforcement agencies to harass him.
Allegations of Misuse of Police Authority
Prasanna contended that his wife’s complaints were solely intended to harass him and regain custody of the child through extrajudicial means. He urged the court to intervene, stating that such actions compromised his personal liberty and parental rights. He further emphasized that police harassment undermined public confidence in the judicial system and called for legal safeguards to prevent such misuse of power.
Court's Decision
Taking note of Prasanna’s concerns, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan directed the Tamil Nadu police to refrain from harassing him. The court emphasized the importance of upholding an individual’s legal rights and ensuring that police investigations remain within legal boundaries. The order reinforced that law enforcement agencies must act within the framework of the law and should not be used as tools for personal vendettas.
"No person should be subjected to undue harassment under the guise of an investigation. Law enforcement must act within the confines of the legal framework," the court stated.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rejects Ex-Serviceman's Plea on Havana Syndrome Allegation
The ruling serves as a significant reminder of the judiciary’s role in protecting individuals from potential abuse of power by law enforcement authorities.
Legal Representation
Prasanna was represented by a team of senior advocates and legal experts, including Senior Advocate A Ramesh, Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra, Advocate Aadarsh Kothari, Advocate Deepika Murali, Advocate Ashwin Ramesh, Advocate Anila Rajendran, Advocate Karthik Sundaram, Advocate Nivea SR, Advocate Harinarayanan K, and Advocate Raja M.
Case Details
- Case Title: Prasanna Sankaranarayanan v. The State
- Case Number: Crl OP 9308 of 2025
