Micah Lomu and Ankita Karungalekar say they were abruptly removed from the upcoming season of Married At First Sight after producers told them to leave following allegations about Lomu that circulated on TikTok.
In an interview with the Daily Mail, the couple said Channel Nine told them the dismissal was in the interests of their mental health but provided no evidence of wrongdoing. The pair say they were told not to have contact with one another while still on location and were never shown screenshots, messages or police reports substantiating the claims.
Lomu, 28, said producers called him in to discuss a TikTok allegation and then separated him from Ankita, 29. "I was shook. I cried for hours," he told the newspaper, adding that he asked producers to refer the allegation to police so he could clear his name. "By dismissing me, you're giving validation that I've done wrong. But they never did. There was nothing."
Ankita said she received a single anonymous direct message from a burner account that read, "Run for your life. This man is manipulative," and that producers later admitted there were "no receipts" of sexual assault or domestic violence. The couple said they had undergone the show's usual psychological checks, completed extensive paperwork and passed background vetting prior to filming.
The pair described a wedding day filmed for the series at Sydney's Lindesay House in Darling Point that they say was celebrated by guests. Photographs published by the Daily Mail show Ankita in a green and gold lehenga and Lomu in a black suit; the couple said they honeymooned in Cairns for three days before the allegations surfaced online.
According to the couple, producers told them they "couldn't handle the backlash" and that Ankita might be "re-coupled," a suggestion she now says was used to keep her uncertain for weeks. "They dangled carrots about a re-coupling, kept me in a hotel for two weeks, and then cut me," she said. The pair say other cast members were notified of the identity of so-called intruders while Ankita was kept waiting.
Both described an immediate emotional toll on family and friends. Lomu said he found his mother visibly shaken by online comments and that his relatives had been affected by the allegations. Ankita said she felt she had lost the opportunity to pursue a relationship she considered real, despite its short duration on television. "One day you're taking vows, the next you're told you're not even allowed to speak to your husband," she told the Daily Mail.
The couple also raised concerns about unequal treatment, arguing that other participants alleged to have committed wrongdoings in past seasons remained on the show. "Why us, when other cast with actual proof against them were kept on the show?" Ankita asked. She suggested their youth and diverse cultural backgrounds may have influenced producers' decision to remove them.
They described financial consequences as well: both said they quit jobs and invested in wardrobes and other preparations for the show, and that producers also select some clothing. Lomu said the economic impact compounded the emotional strain of the dismissal.
Channel Nine did not respond to requests for comment in the Daily Mail report. The network has in past seasons faced criticism over contestant conduct and its handling of allegations, prompting heightened attention to how producers manage off-camera accusations.
Lomu and Ankita said they remain close despite the show's decision and that they will continue to support one another. They urged potential applicants to consider the risks of reality television and the speed at which social media allegations can spread. "It's easier to make a TikTok than to go to police," Lomu said, stressing the personal consequences of online claims for his family and for their reputations.
The couple's account highlights tensions between production decisions, participant welfare and the influence of social media on casting and editing choices. They said they were offered no pathway to publicly clear their names on the show and that being removed carried both reputational and practical costs. Their story adds to ongoing public debate over how reality programs respond to unverified online allegations and the protections afforded to participants once filming begins.