Wrong Man’s Photos Linked to Rippling’s Prasanna Sankar Case, Demands Immediate Removal

A man named Anoop K M has raised concerns over the wrongful circulation of his photographs on social media, mistakenly linking him to the high-profile legal dispute involving Chennai-born tech entrepreneur Prasanna Sankar and his estranged wife, Dhivya Sashidhar.

In a message directed at Prasanna, Anoop expressed distress over the misuse of his images. "Respected sir, you should share the images of the actual persons involved with your tragedy. My photos are being shared on social media because my name is Anoop and I am married to Roshna. It is requested to share that the images are not actual, else a police complaint shall be filed," he stated.

The controversy comes amid Prasanna's recent allegations against the Chennai police, which he made on X (formerly Twitter). Prasanna, the co-founder of HR-tech startup Rippling, claimed that after his estranged wife accused him of kidnapping their son, the police began tracking his location, car movements, UPI transactions, and IP address without filing an FIR.

Sankar, who had been evading Chennai Police over allegations of rape and domestic violence filed by his wife, recently addressed the case on social media. Denying the accusations, he maintained that he was being falsely targeted amid their divorce and custody battle. He presented a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) as proof that their child's custody arrangement was mutually agreed upon, refuting allegations of forceful abduction or coercion.

The entrepreneur also dismissed claims that he had recorded and distributed explicit videos of his wife, stating that Singapore police had seized his devices and found no incriminating evidence. He further countered allegations of involvement in a US prostitution case, asserting that criminal charges in the US are public records, and no such charges had been filed against him.

On the financial front, Sankar denied fraudulently transferring matrimonial assets, stating that the disputed assets were his Rippling shares, in which his wife had no involvement. He alleged that she was making false complaints for financial leverage. Before returning their child, he insisted on court agreements ensuring adherence to the custody schedule and safeguarding the child's passport in a joint locker.