Marriage, Career, and Family Background
Prasanna Sankar, an Indian tech entrepreneur and co-founder of the $10 billion San Francisco-based HR startup Rippling, has found himself at the center of a very public domestic controversy . Sankar met Dhivya Sashidhar while both were students at NIT Trichy (National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli) over a decade ago . The couple married ten years ago and have a nine-year-old son, whose custody now lies at the heart of their dispute . Sankar, also the founder of a Singapore-based crypto social network called 0xPPL, built a reputation as a successful software entrepreneur – a public image now entangled with personal allegations and legal battles.
Alleged Affair and Breakdown of the Marriage
The turmoil began when Sankar claims he discovered his wife’s alleged infidelity. In a now-viral X (Twitter) thread posted over the weekend of March 22–23, 2025, he accused Dhivya of having an affair with a man named Anoop for over six months . According to Sankar, he learned of the affair after Anoop’s wife sent him screenshots of messages and hotel bookings as evidence . “Me and my wife, Dhivya, were married for 10 years and we have a 9-year-old son. Recently our marriage broke down after I discovered she was having an affair… for 6+ months,” he wrote on X , describing the betrayal that precipitated their marital collapse.
Sankar alleges that once he confronted Dhivya with the evidence of her affair, she demanded an exorbitant divorce settlement . When negotiations stalled over the amount of money involved, he claims Dhivya retaliated by filing false criminal complaints against him . Specifically, Sankar says his estranged wife lodged a domestic violence complaint accusing him of physically assaulting her, and later even filed a rape case – allegations he vehemently insists are fabricated
. “She was unhappy and decided to instead file a fake police complaint against me saying I hit her,” Sankar recounted of that period . He further states that Dhivya accused him of circulating her explicit images, charges which Sankar says were investigated by Singapore police and found baseless. “Singapore police have investigated these allegations, found them baseless and have cleared me from all charges,” he wrote, asserting that authorities dismissed the rape and photo claims against him . These public allegations by Sankar remain unverified by independent authorities, representing his account of events. Dhivya’s side of the story sharply contradicts this narrative, as she later responded with accusations of her own (detailed in a later section).
Dueling Divorce Filings in Two Countries
Around the same time, the couple’s divorce proceedings took an international turn. Sankar had initially filed for divorce in India, but he alleges that Dhivya attempted to gain an upper hand by filing a parallel divorce case in the United States . By moving the legal fight to the U.S. – where the couple had also lived – Dhivya was reportedly seeking a more favorable outcome and larger financial payout . Sankar portrays this move as a strategic forum-shopping: an effort to “wrangle a bigger settlement” by leveraging U.S. courts . At this stage, the estranged spouses were effectively fighting on two fronts – Indian and American jurisdictions – adding complexity to their separation.
International Custody Battle and U.S. Court Ruling
Central to the conflict was the custody of their 9-year-old son. Sankar alleges that during the divorce fight, Dhivya took their son and flew to the United States without his consent, an act he describes bluntly as abduction . “She then ‘abducted’ our child and took him to the US,” he claimed in his social media posts . In response, Sankar says he filed an international child abduction case in a U.S. court, seeking the return of his son . His efforts apparently met with success: a U.S. judge ruled in his favor and ordered that the child be returned to him . Sankar shared that “the judge ruled in favor of me and asked to return the child” – a rare legal victory amid otherwise chaotic proceedings .
This U.S. court decision, issued in January 2025, paved the way for a temporary truce. Following the ruling, the couple negotiated and signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to settle certain matters . Under the MoU’s terms, Sankar agreed to pay Dhivya a lump sum of approximately ₹9 crore (about $1.1 million USD) and monthly support of ₹4.3 lakh, and in exchange they would share joint custody of their son . Dhivya, for her part, was supposed to deposit their son’s passport in a neutral shared locker as a trust-building measure to prevent either parent from unilaterally taking the child abroad . At least on paper, it appeared the warring couple had found a path toward co-parenting: joint custody in Chennai (their hometown) backed by a hefty financial settlement . However, this fragile agreement would soon unravel.
Collapse of the Settlement and Renewed Conflict
According to Sankar, Dhivya reneged on the MoU agreement not long after it was signed. He claims she refused to comply with the condition about the passport – allegedly declining to place the child’s passport in the shared locker as agreed . Instead, Sankar asserts, she planned to restart the divorce battle in the U.S. and demand even more money, effectively backtracking on the settlement . At this point, tensions between the exes escalated once again. By early March 2025, Sankar was back in India with their son, attempting to enforce the custody arrangement. He says he withheld returning the child to Dhivya’s care until the passport safeguard was honored – fearing that without it, Dhivya might leave the country with the boy again . This standoff set the stage for a dramatic turn: Dhivya approached Indian authorities and filed a kidnapping complaint against Sankar, accusing him of unlawfully taking or keeping their son . The complaint, filed in Chennai, effectively criminalized what Sankar portrays as a custody enforcement measure. On the night that the kidnapping case was lodged, police action was swift. Chennai police officers arrived at the hotel where Sankar was staying in the city, seeking to apprehend him .
Sensing that he might be arrested on what he insists are false charges, Sankar made a split-second decision: he fled the hotel with his son before the police could detain him . In his own words, “The police knocked on the door in the middle of the night before which I was able to escape with my son,” he wrote, describing the harrowing close call . This marked the beginning of Sankar effectively going into hiding – a drastic measure in a bid to retain custody of his child and avoid jail.
“On the Run”: Social Media Revelations and Police Harassment Allegations
By late March 2025, Prasanna Sankar found himself as a fugitive in the eyes of local law enforcement – “on the run” from the Chennai police, as he put it . Rather than keeping the matter private, the tech founder took the extraordinary step of broadcasting his plight on social media. On Sunday, March 23, he posted a detailed thread on X (formerly Twitter) outlining his version of events and pleading for help. The posts quickly went viral, garnering over 8.6 million views within a day and drawing widespread public attention to what had previously been a behind-closed-doors family dispute.
In his online chronicle, Sankar leveled serious accusations against the Chennai police, claiming they were overstepping their authority and even colluding with his estranged wife. He wrote that despite providing evidence to the authorities that his son was safe and that ongoing court proceedings governed the custody situation, the police continued to aggressively pursue him . According to Sankar, officers from the Thirumangalam police station in Chennai were tracking his movements using illegal means – from tracing his mobile phone and car GPS to monitoring digital payments. “My cell phone location, car, UPI, IP – everything is being tracked by the cops, illegally, without any FIR,” he alleged in one post . He described how police had seized the phone of a household caretaker simply because Sankar had paid that person ₹200 via a UPI (digital) transaction – presumably to mine any clues of his whereabouts . He also claimed officers raided an Airbnb property where he had stayed, barely missing him before he moved on .
Perhaps most startling, Sankar accused police officials of outright extortion. In one of his public posts, he appealed for media attention, alleging that officers were demanding a hefty bribe to release a friend who was caught up in the case. Sankar’s close friend Gokul (Gokula Krishnan) had allegedly been visited by police at his home in Bengaluru, then taken into custody in Chennai, apparently under suspicion of helping Sankar hide .
“Do I know any media people? The Thirumangalam, Chennai police station is harassing me for money knowing that I’m a successful founder. The AC and the SI have asked me for ₹25L (₹25 lakh) to release my friend who has been in custody,” Sankar wrote in a tweet, tagging the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and the Indian Prime Minister’s offices for support . He further claimed that police pressured this friend to sign documents discrediting Sankar’s social media statements, allegedly to undermine his credibility . Sankar portrays these actions as abuses of power by local law enforcement, suggesting that officers are siding with Dhivya and using intimidation tactics to corner him. It is important to note that these assertions are public allegations by Sankar; as of now they have not been confirmed by an independent investigation. The Chennai police have not publicly responded to the specific charges of harassment or bribery.
By going public in such a dramatic fashion, Prasanna Sankar effectively turned a private family feud into a matter of national conversation. His decision to broadcast the saga on X has had a dual effect: it rallied many netizens to his side – amplifying concerns about misused police power and the plight of a father fighting for his son – while also exposing him to scrutiny and skepticism regarding the veracity of his claims. The spectacle has inevitably impacted Sankar’s public image, casting him as a distressed parent in the eyes of some and a fugitive tech CEO in the eyes of others.
Dhivya Sashidhar’s Counter-Allegations
In response to Sankar’s very public narrative, Dhivya Sashidhar has emphatically denied his version of events and presented her own set of explosive allegations. Her account, shared with both police and the media, depicts Sankar as the aggressor and manipulator in this saga . Dhivya insists that she is the one who has been wronged and is seeking justice and her child’s safety. The truth, as always, likely lies in the court determinations to come, but here is Dhivya’s side of the story as she alleges:
Kidnapping of their Son: Dhivya claims that just three weeks prior (in early March 2025), Prasanna Sankar deceived her into coming to India from the U.S. under the pretext of resolving a property issue. Shortly after she arrived in Chennai, she alleges, Sankar orchestrated the forcible taking of their son from her by involving a friend named Gokula Krishnan (the same “Gokul” mentioned in Sankar’s posts) . “I didn’t know what happened to my son, and that is why I filed a complaint with the police,” Dhivya recounted, explaining her rationale for lodging the kidnapping report . In other words, Dhivya asserts that it was Sankar who effectively abducted the child from her, not the other way around. From her perspective, the Chennai police’s involvement was entirely appropriate – an effort to help a mother locate and regain her missing child. She maintains that the authorities have been trying to help her get her son back, contradicting Sankar’s depiction of the police as hostile or corrupt.
Financial Impropriety: Dhivya also accuses Prasanna of serious financial misconduct and fraud within their marriage. She alleges that he transferred the couple’s joint assets into his father’s name to evade taxes and put those assets out of her reach . According to her, Prasanna’s father then shifted these assets to Prasanna’s brother in Thailand, raising further questions about the funds’ whereabouts . Dhivya says that during this process she was intimidated into signing documents that prevented her from reporting these supposed tax evasion schemes to U.S. authorities . “They threatened and took my signature, claiming that I shouldn’t complain about this tax crime,” she stated, describing coercion by Prasanna and his associates . Dhivya notes that after this episode, they returned to India in hopes of living peacefully, “but he is not allowing that too,” suggesting that Prasanna continued to disrupt any chance of a calm resolution . It’s worth noting that these financial allegations, if true, could have legal ramifications well beyond the family courts, potentially involving tax authorities in multiple countries. However, they remain allegations by Dhivya at this stage, with no public documentation yet provided to substantiate them.
Passport Theft and Abduction Fears: Echoing the custody tussle, Dhivya accuses Sankar of stealing their son’s passport – an act that in her view signals an intent by him to take the child out of the country permanently . She has voiced fear that Prasanna might secretly abduct the child abroad, cutting off her access entirely . This claim aligns with her stance that all of her actions (such as involving police) have been driven by concern for her son’s safety and the need to keep him within reach. It also suggests Dhivya’s lack of trust that Sankar would abide by any court agreement (given her assertion that he has already violated terms by hiding the child). Again, this directly conflicts with Sankar’s claim that it was Dhivya who refused to hand over the passport as agreed – a point of contention that will likely be scrutinized in court.
Character Assassination – Sexual Misconduct Claims: In perhaps the most damaging set of allegations, Dhivya characterizes Prasanna Sankar as a sexual predator with a criminal history . She alleges that he secretly recorded women in intimate situations without their consent, and even claims that she herself was a victim of sexual assault by him . Dhivya states that at one point Prasanna was arrested by Singapore police in connection with these purported offenses, though he was later released on bail . Additionally, she claims that Prasanna was caught in a sting operation for solicitation and prostitution, implying involvement with sex workers, and that this incident led to him being removed from his own company . (Notably, Prasanna did step away from an active role at Rippling in the past; Dhivya’s insinuation is that misconduct was the reason, although this is unverified.) Dhivya suggests that after this disgrace, Prasanna “sought help from Chennai Police” – possibly to avoid further fallout – an ironic contrast to his current adversarial stance with the same police . These salacious allegations, if false, could be seen as an attempt to destroy Prasanna’s reputation. If true, they would recast the entire narrative and possibly explain aggressive actions against him. As of now, no evidence or official records have been made public to confirm these claims. They remain Dhivya’s allegations, which Prasanna has not directly addressed in detail in his social media posts (beyond denying wrongdoing).
In summary, Dhivya Sashidhar’s counter-allegations depict her as a mother protecting her child from a deceitful, abusive husband, in stark opposition to Prasanna Sankar’s portrayal of himself as a victim of an avaricious wife and overzealous police. Both sides have aired grievous charges against the other, with little room for reconciliation evident. The truth may emerge as legal processes unfold, but in the meantime the public is left with two irreconcilable narratives.
Law Enforcement’s Role and Official Response
Caught between these dueling narratives is the role of law enforcement, particularly the Chennai city police. Thus far, the police have executed their duties by acting on Dhivya’s kidnapping complaint – attempting to locate and detain Prasanna, and to reunite the child with the mother. However, Prasanna’s allegations of misconduct by certain officers (illegal surveillance, warrantless searches, and bribery demands) raise serious questions about whether some in the force overstepped legal boundaries . If true, such actions could suggest an improper bias or even corruption, lending credence to Prasanna’s claims of being unfairly “hunted.” On the other hand, if Dhivya’s story holds true, the police may have been responding to an urgent child recovery situation, which can justify swift and forceful measures.
As of the latest updates on March 24, 2025, there has been no official public statement from the Chennai Police addressing the specific allegations made by either party . The authorities have not confirmed Prasanna’s claims of harassment or provided their own account of the attempts to detain him. It is typical in such sensitive domestic disputes for police to remain tight-lipped to protect the privacy of the child and ensure the integrity of ongoing investigations. The lack of an official narrative means the public only hears Prasanna and Dhivya’s voices for now.
The case has already seen involvement of courts in two countries. Moving forward, it’s likely to engage Indian courts as well – both on the criminal side (Dhivya’s kidnapping FIR against Prasanna, and any petitions Prasanna files against police) and the civil side (divorce and custody arrangements). Prasanna has announced his intention to file a legal petition to prevent further harassment by the police , seeking relief from the courts to rein in any unlawful actions. How the judiciary responds will be crucial in untangling the truth from the accusations. Law enforcement, too, may eventually need to clarify their stance – especially if evidence either corroborating or disproving Prasanna’s corruption allegations comes to light.
Impact on Public Image and Custody Concerns
This controversy has significant implications for everyone involved. Prasanna Sankar’s public image, in particular, has been impacted in multiple ways. As a high-profile entrepreneur associated with a successful Silicon Valley unicorn, Prasanna was previously known in tech circles for his achievements. Now, his name in headlines is tethered to a messy domestic saga rather than business accomplishments. The allegations against him – especially Dhivya’s claims of sexual offenses – threaten to tarnish his reputation irreparably if believed. At the same time, his outspoken social media campaign has also garnered him sympathy from those who see a father desperately trying to protect his child and himself. The court of public opinion is split: some express support for Prasanna’s courage in calling out alleged corruption and fighting parental alienation, while others reserve judgment or question the wisdom of airing such personal matters so openly. Rippling, the company he co-founded, and other ventures he’s associated with may also feel indirect effects as investors and colleagues watch the situation unfold. (Dhivya’s claim that he was removed from Rippling after a prior incident is unverified, but if it gained traction it could prompt the company to clarify his status.)
For Dhivya Sashidhar, going public with her side carries its own risks and consequences. While she may feel vindicated in telling her story, she too faces scrutiny. Allegations of infidelity and extortion could damage her standing, and if any of Prasanna’s claims (like false complaints or misusing the law) are proven true, it could affect her credibility in court and in public. Nonetheless, Dhivya’s focus in her statements has been on her son’s welfare and her own victimization, which resonates with those concerned about women’s safety and financial exploitation. The emotional toll on her is evident in the accusations she’s made, painting a picture of a woman who has endured betrayal and coercion.
Most importantly, the well-being of the couple’s 9-year-old son hangs in the balance. The child’s custody is being bitterly contested, and the ongoing conflict puts him in an extremely delicate situation. Each parent accuses the other of endangering or wrongly depriving the child. Family law experts often caution that public mud-slinging can hurt one’s case in custody battles, as courts prioritize the child’s best interests and a stable environment. Here, both parents have made public moves that could be seen as destabilizing – Prasanna by absconding with the child (under threat of arrest) and igniting a social media firestorm, and Dhivya by leveling severe accusations through police and press. The legal resolution of custody will depend on what facts can be proven: for instance, was the child “abducted” by either parent at any point, and what living situation serves the child’s best interest now? The earlier MoU indicated a willingness to share custody, suggesting that, at least at one point, both parents agreed the child needed both of them. Rebuilding enough trust to return to that arrangement may be difficult after the recent escalation. The court might also involve child welfare agencies or counselors to ensure the child is safe and heard amidst the fight.
Outlook and Ongoing Developments
As of this writing, Prasanna Sankar remains in an undisclosed location with his son, having evaded the immediate attempts to detain him. His social media updates have slowed after the initial explosive thread, possibly on legal advice as lawyers take over the case. Dhivya Sashidhar, through her statements and the police complaint, continues to seek the return of her son and action against Prasanna. The situation is fluid and could evolve rapidly – arrests could be made if Prasanna’s location is discovered, courts could issue new orders altering custody or restraining one party’s actions, and more evidence could surface (such as communications, financial records, or videos) to bolster one side’s story.
Both parties face high stakes. Public allegations versus verified facts will eventually be sorted in the courts: the facts that are clear at this stage include the existence of a U.S. court order favoring Prasanna in January , the signing of an MoU which both acknowledge (though they dispute compliance) , and the filing of at least one police complaint (Dhivya’s FIR in Chennai accusing Prasanna of kidnapping). Everything else – from affair and abuse claims to corruption and secret recordings – remains allegations.
For observers, this case underscores the legal and emotional complexities that arise when a domestic dispute crosses international borders and plays out in the public eye. It involves elements of family law (divorce and custody across two countries), criminal law (assault, kidnapping, extortion charges), and even corporate intrigue. The emotional weight is equally heavy: feelings of betrayal, fears for a child’s safety, and the personal destruction that a bitter breakup leaves in its wake. Each new development will need to be approached with caution and respect for the legal process, as the “court of public opinion” cannot deliver actual justice or resolution for the family.
For now, all eyes are on the next moves by law enforcement and the courts. Will Prasanna Sankar turn himself in or seek legal protection from arrest? Will Dhivya Sashidhar present further evidence to substantiate her claims? Will the Chennai Police address the bribery and harassment allegations against their officers? These questions remain unanswered. Officials in Chennai have indicated that an official response or press briefing may be forthcoming – Prasanna even suggested that his wife and the police might hold a joint press conference to air accusations against him . Until such events occur or more information becomes public, the story remains one of claims and counterclaims.
In conclusion, the saga of Prasanna Sankar and Dhivya Sashidhar exemplifies a modern cautionary tale of how a domestic conflict, when fueled by social media and complicated by jurisdictional issues, can spiral into a full-blown public controversy. It is a story still unfolding – a blend of personal anguish and public spectacle. Both the tech entrepreneur and his estranged wife have charted a course of legal warfare that will likely take months, if not years, to resolve. In the meantime, their private turmoil is playing out on a very public stage, with reputations, fortunes, and the fate of a child hanging in the balance. The Nationalist Post will continue to monitor this developing story, providing updates as verified facts emerge and the legal process advances.
