India Tribune Newsdesk
Chicago: Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu, widely celebrated in India for building a global software company rooted in a “swadeshi” ethos, is simultaneously facing one of the most contentious chapters of his personal life in a California courtroom. At the centre of the dispute is an extraordinary order directing him to post a $1.7 billion bond in his ongoing divorce case with his estranged wife, Pramila Srinivasan—an order his legal team insists is invalid, outdated, and the result of a court being misled.
The controversy resurfaced after media reports revealed a January 2025 order by a California court, passed on an ex parte emergency application filed by Srinivasan, which sought to safeguard her alleged rights over marital assets. The order not only directed Vembu to furnish the massive bond but also paused the restructuring of Zoho’s US subsidiary and appointed a receiver over several US-based Zoho entities as well as certain personal assets linked to Vembu and co-founder Tony Thomas. The court itself acknowledged the unprecedented nature of the directive, citing concerns that Srinivasan’s interests could otherwise be prejudiced.
Vembu’s lawyer, Christopher C. Melcher, responded sharply, stating that the order was made nearly a year ago under emergency conditions and is now under appeal. According to him, the judge was “completely misled” by what he described as outrageously false allegations made by Srinivasan and her New York–based attorney, who he claims is not licensed to practise law in California. Melcher has repeatedly argued that there is no legal authority for such a bond, that even a subsequent judge found the amount “absurd,” and that the related receivership order has since been stayed.
The divorce dispute is deeply tied to California’s community property laws, under which assets acquired during marriage are considered jointly owned. Vembu and Srinivasan married in 1993 and lived in California for nearly three decades. During this time, Vembu co-founded AdventNet—later renamed Zoho Corporation—which grew into a global software giant. The couple have a 26-year-old son diagnosed with autism. In 2019, Vembu relocated to India and began running Zoho from his ancestral village in Tamil Nadu. He filed for divorce in 2021.
Srinivasan has alleged that Vembu abandoned her and their special-needs son when he moved to India and that he subsequently transferred Zoho stakes and intellectual property through complex transactions without her knowledge or consent. She has claimed that these actions were designed to deprive her of her rightful share of marital wealth, pointing to the fact that significant ownership now rests with Vembu’s siblings, while he personally holds around 5% of the parent company.
Vembu has categorically denied these allegations, calling them fiction. Through his lawyer, he maintains that he has supported his wife and son financially and has acted transparently. Melcher has stated that Vembu offered Srinivasan 50% of his shares in Zoho Corporation Private Limited unconditionally and has already transferred his interest in the family home to her. According to him, she refused both the share offer and even a proposed $150 million loan-backed arrangement, while continuing to accuse Vembu of cheating her.
Media reports have noted that Vembu has not posted any portion of the $1.7 billion bond and remains technically out of compliance with that specific order. His lawyer counters that the bond is impossible to comply with, legally unsound, and irrelevant to spousal support, which Srinivasan has not even sought.
As the case plays out, it has cast a stark contrast between Vembu’s public image as a principled tech leader and the bitter, high-stakes legal fight unfolding abroad. His legal team insists that the sensational focus on the bond order amounts to recycling old news from an emergency ruling that should never have been issued. Ultimately, they argue, the truth will emerge only through a full trial—one that will decide not just the division of assets, but also whose version of this deeply personal conflict withstands judicial scrutiny.
(Compiled from various news reports)
