In October 2021 a five-year-old baby-and-mother personal-care brand from Gurugram was sold in a deal that YourStory and Business Today both reported as India’s largest direct-to-consumer exit in beauty and personal care at the time, valuing The Moms Co. at around ₹500 crore (about $52 million at $1 ≈ ₹96.0). Four years later that same brand sat on a lender’s for-sale block, its acquirer broken up for parts — and the founders who built it had already spent two of those years chasing the buyer for money it had promised in the deal but not fully paid.
That is the arc this piece follows: a genuinely well-built consumer brand, founded on a real product gap, that grew revenue every year on record and then discovered that being acquired at a headline valuation is not the same as being paid, and that the health of the company that buys you matters as much as the price on the term sheet. The Moms Co. never failed as a brand. It was undone by the balance sheet of its owner. The numbers below — revenue that grew 40.0% in its last independently reported year, losses that grew faster, and an acquisition value two sets of reporters could not agree on — tell that story better than any adjective.
Quick facts
| Company | The Moms Co. (legal entity: Amishi Consumer Technologies Private Limited) |
| Founded | May 2016, Gurugram, Haryana |
| Founder(s) | Malika Datt Sadani (co-founder and CEO) and Mohit Sadani |
| Businesses | Natural, toxin-free baby-care and mother/pregnancy personal-care products, sold direct-to-consumer online and through retail and pharmacy chains |
| Latest disclosed FY revenue | ₹73.51 crore total revenue in FY23 (operating revenue ₹71.22 crore), up 40.0% from FY22, per its RoC filing as reported by Inc42; FY24 not publicly filed at the time of writing |
| Latest disclosed FY profit/loss | Net loss of ₹64.38 crore in FY23 (Inc42, from RoC filing), a net margin of about -87.6% |
| Listed | Private; never listed. A wholly-owned subsidiary of The Good Glamm Group from November 2024 |
| Market value / last valuation | Valued at a reported ₹500 crore in the 2021 acquisition (YourStory, Business Today); Entrackr put the actual 2021 deal amount lower, at ₹300–350 crore |
| Key shareholders / CEO | At acquisition, Saama Capital held 30.10%, DSG Consumer Partners 22.62%, founders 40.87% and angels 6.41% (Entrackr); by November 2024, The Good Glamm Group owned 100% |
What they do
The Moms Co. sells natural, toxin-free personal-care products aimed at two closely linked buyers: expectant and new mothers, and their babies. The range spans pregnancy care, baby care, hair care, body lotions and body butters, age-control and toners; in a 2021 founder interview on the Neon fund podcast, co-founder Mohit Sadani described a catalogue of roughly 40 stock-keeping units at the time, with a plan to reach 50–60 by the end of that year. The pitch to consumers is a certified “natural” formulation free of the sulphates, parabens and mineral oils that mass-market baby and mother brands in India had long used, sold first through the company’s own website and marketplaces and later pushed into physical pharmacy and beauty retail.
The origin
The founding insight was personal before it was commercial. Malika Datt Sadani and her husband Mohit Sadani married in 2008; Mohit, an MBA from IIM Ahmedabad, was working as a consultant at McKinsey, and when he moved to McKinsey’s London office, Malika — an engineering graduate from Savitribai Phule Pune University with an MBA from Welingkar and prior stints at CMS Computers and ICICI Bank — left her job and moved with him, spending roughly six years in London from 2010 to 2016 raising their two daughters. It was there, according to accounts she has given to YourStory and in her own retellings of the story, that the couple found their daughters had sensitive skin and struggled to find genuinely natural, toxin-free products they trusted — and, on returning to India, found that gap even wider in the local market. The Moms Co. was incorporated in May 2016 as Amishi Consumer Technologies to fill it. The framing the founders have used consistently since is that they were not building a beauty brand so much as a trust brand for a nervous, first-time-parent buyer who reads every label — a buyer for whom “natural” and “safe” were purchase decisions, not marketing adjectives.
The struggle years
The Moms Co.’s hard years were not the early ones. The brand grew quickly from a tiny base: revenue from operations roughly tripled to ₹22.23 crore in FY20 from about ₹7.4 crore in FY19, according to figures Entrackr reported from the company’s filings at the time of its acquisition. The genuine near-death experiences came after the money arrived, and they came from the buyer, not the market. The first was structural and industry-wide: The Moms Co. competed in a natural personal-care category that turned brutally expensive to grow in. Its own FY23 filing shows advertising and promotion spend of ₹56.99 crore against operating revenue of ₹71.22 crore — the brand was spending roughly 80 paise on marketing for every rupee of product it sold — a customer-acquisition treadmill that turned every year of revenue growth into a larger loss. That is the mechanism behind a net loss that widened 60% year on year even as revenue rose 40%.
The second, and far more damaging, setback was its acquirer’s collapse. After The Good Glamm Group bought a majority stake in 2021 and agreed to buy out the rest over the following years, it fell behind on the payments it owed the founders and other sellers. Entrackr reported that The Moms Co., alongside investors from the Indian Angel Network, issued default notices to The Good Glamm Group for its failure to make the final payments tied to the acquisition — the same failure that pushed Sirona’s founders and IAN to file their own default notices against the group. Those notices were withdrawn only after Good Glamm signed a fresh agreement with revised payment timelines and completed the buyout in November 2024, three years after it first announced the deal. In other words, the people who built The Moms Co. spent a chunk of their supposed exit not counting proceeds but chasing an acquirer that could not pay on schedule — a struggle that has nothing to do with whether the product worked and everything to do with whom they sold to.
The turning point
The single turning-point event is the October 2021 sale to The Good Glamm Group, and the numbers on either side of it explain both the celebration at the time and the wreckage that followed. On one side, the deal was reported by YourStory and Business Today as India’s largest direct-to-consumer exit in beauty and personal care at that point, valuing The Moms Co. at a reported ₹500 crore (about $52 million at $1 ≈ ₹96.0), with Good Glamm taking an initial 75% stake and pledging a further ₹100–150 crore of primary capital into the brand and a target of a ₹500 crore revenue run-rate within two years, per Entrackr’s reporting. On the other side of the same event, Entrackr’s own account put the actual cash-and-stock consideration lower, at ₹300–350 crore — the first sign that the headline number and the money that changed hands were not the same thing. The stake then climbed in stages: to 90% on 7 March 2023, when Mohit and Malika Sadani stepped back from day-to-day operations while keeping board seats and an option to sell their remaining 10% within a year (Business Today), and to 100% in November 2024 (Business Standard, YourStory). The turning point, then, was not a moment of triumph that soured slowly. It was a deal whose two sides — a record valuation and an acquirer that would struggle for years to actually pay it — were both visible in the reporting from day one.
The money behind it
The Moms Co. raised a modest amount by later D2C standards before selling, and trackers disagree on the exact total:
- Total external funding: Inc42 records roughly $9 million across four rounds, with the last round dated 14 September 2020 (Series B); co-founder Mohit Sadani cited about $10 million across four rounds on the Neon fund podcast in 2021; some third-party trackers list a higher figure of around $15.3 million. This piece treats the total as roughly $9–15 million across four to six rounds rather than a single confirmed number.
- Lead institutional backers: DSG Consumer Partners and Saama Capital were the two principal venture investors. At the point of the 2021 acquisition, Saama Capital held 30.10% and DSG Consumer Partners 22.62% of the company, per Entrackr’s reporting of the cap table.
- Founders and angels: the two founders together held 40.87% at acquisition, with angel investors holding 6.41% collectively (Entrackr) — a cap table that left the founders with a meaningful, but not controlling, share to sell.
- The acquisition itself became the largest single flow of capital in the story: The Good Glamm Group’s staged purchase (75% in 2021, 90% in 2023, 100% in 2024), plus its pledge of ₹100–150 crore in fresh primary capital into the brand post-deal, per Entrackr.
What each backer changed is straightforward: DSG Consumer Partners and Saama Capital, both known for early D2C and consumer bets in India, provided the growth capital that took the brand from a few crore of revenue to the ₹50-crore-plus scale that made it an attractive acquisition target; and The Good Glamm Group provided the exit — and, later, the crisis.
How it makes money
The Moms Co. earns the way a branded consumer-goods company does: it sells physical products at a retail price above their landed cost, and the gap between the two has to cover marketing, logistics, salaries and platform commissions before anything reaches the bottom line. The revealing part of its economics is where the money went, not where it came from. From the FY23 filing as reported by Inc42:
- Cost of goods (stock-in-trade): ₹44.12 crore in FY23, up 73% from ₹25.52 crore in FY22 — the direct cost of the products sold.
- Advertising and promotion: ₹56.99 crore in FY23, up 74% from ₹32.78 crore in FY22 — larger than the cost of the goods themselves, and equal to about 80% of operating revenue.
- Employee benefits: ₹9.47 crore in FY23, down 21% from ₹11.92 crore in FY22 — a rare line that fell, consistent with a post-acquisition cost pull-back.
- Total expenses: ₹137.87 crore in FY23, up 67% from ₹82.58 crore in FY22 — rising far faster than the 40% revenue growth, which is why the loss widened.
The part outsiders get wrong is assuming a “natural” premium brand earns a comfortable margin because its shelf prices are high. In FY23 The Moms Co. spent more on advertising than it did on the goods it sold, because in a crowded natural-personal-care market — where it competed against much larger, better-funded rivals — customer acquisition, not manufacturing, was the dominant cost. The margin did not sit in the product; it was consumed by the fight to be seen.
The numbers
Figures below come from The Moms Co.’s Registrar of Companies filings as reported by Inc42 and Entrackr, which compile Indian startup financials from MCA records. All figures are in ₹ crore. FY24 accounts were not publicly filed at the time of writing, so FY23 is the latest independently reported year.
| Financial year | Operating revenue (₹ crore) | Net profit/(loss) (₹ crore) |
| FY20 | 22.23 (tripled from ~7.4 in FY19) | Not separately disclosed in sources reviewed |
| FY22 | 51.51 (total revenue 52.49) | (40.14) |
| FY23 | 71.22 (total revenue 73.51) | (64.38) |
Two facts stand out. First, revenue growth was real and steady — operating revenue rose 38% in FY23 and total revenue 40%, on top of a near-tripling in FY20 — so this was never a brand that failed to sell. Second, the loss grew faster than the top line every reported year, reaching ₹64.38 crore in FY23 against ₹73.51 crore of total revenue, a net margin of roughly -87.6%, with total assets of about ₹81.5 crore (Inc42). A brand growing 40% while losing nearly a rupee for every rupee of revenue depends entirely on its owner’s willingness and ability to keep funding the gap — which is exactly the assumption that broke.
Where the money comes from
The Moms Co. sold across a spread of channels rather than leaning on one, according to the founder-stated breakdown Mohit Sadani gave on the Neon fund podcast in 2021 (figures are company-stated and from that period, not audited):
- Online was the large majority of revenue, split across the company’s own D2C website, Amazon and Nykaa, which the founder described as generating “pretty much similar numbers” depending on the month, with Flipkart and FirstCry as “very close seconds” and 1mg adding pharma e-commerce reach.
- Offline was only about 10% of revenue at that time (2021, founder-stated), routed through pharmacy chains and hospital in-store points.
- Geographic spread: sales reached more than 15,000 pin codes, with about 45% of sales coming from tier-2 and tier-3 cities rather than the metros — a reach the founder attributed to marketplace logistics.
- Catalogue: roughly 40 SKUs at the time, across pregnancy care, baby care, hair care, body lotions and butters, age-control and toners (Neon fund podcast, 2021).
The surprise in that mix is how marketplace-dependent the brand was: for a company marketed as a direct-to-consumer natural brand, no single channel — not even its own website — dominated, and a large share of demand came from small towns reached through Amazon, Nykaa, Flipkart and FirstCry rather than from a loyal owned-website base. That channel diffusion is part of why advertising spend stayed so high: the brand had to keep paying to acquire customers on platforms it did not own.
The risks
The risks in The Moms Co.’s story are unusual because the biggest ones sat with its owner, not its market:
- Acquirer solvency (the risk that actually materialised). The Good Glamm Group fell behind on the payments it owed for The Moms Co., prompting the founders and Indian Angel Network investors to issue default notices, per Entrackr; the buyout was only completed in November 2024 after revised timelines. When a brand is sold in stages for deferred consideration, the seller’s real risk is not price but counterparty solvency — and here it broke.
- Forced sale under a distressed parent. On 23 July 2025, Good Glamm founder Darpan Sanghvi confirmed in a letter to stakeholders that lenders were enforcing a brand-by-brand sale of the group after failed restructuring; Entrackr reported The Moms Co. was put up for sale alongside Organic Harvest and St. Botanica, while Miss Malini, Sirona and ScoopWhoop had already been sold in earlier fire sales. A brand’s fate can be decided by its owner’s creditors regardless of its own performance.
- Structural unprofitability. With advertising at roughly 80% of operating revenue and total expenses (₹137.87 crore in FY23) running at nearly double revenue (₹73.51 crore), the brand needed continuous external funding to survive — precisely the funding a cash-strapped parent could no longer reliably provide (Inc42 filing data).
The takeaway
The transferable lesson from The Moms Co. is about the exit, not the entry. The founders did almost everything a consumer-brand playbook asks: they found a real product gap born of personal experience, built a trusted natural brand, grew revenue every year on record, and sold at what the press called a record valuation for their category. And it still ended with the brand on a lender’s block and the founders sending legal notices to collect what they were owed. The reason is that an acquisition paid in stages and deferred consideration transfers your company immediately but pays you slowly — and over that slow period, your fortune is tied to a balance sheet you no longer control. When The Good Glamm Group’s roll-up of D2C brands ran out of money, every founder who had sold into it, however good their own brand, was exposed to the same failure. For anyone selling a company, the price on the term sheet is only as good as the buyer’s ability to pay it on time; the due diligence that matters most at exit is the diligence you do on the acquirer, not the diligence they do on you.
Frequently asked questions
Who founded The Moms Co. and when?
The Moms Co. was founded in May 2016 in Gurugram by Malika Datt Sadani, who serves as CEO, and her husband Mohit Sadani, under the legal entity Amishi Consumer Technologies Private Limited. The idea grew out of the couple’s search for genuinely natural, toxin-free products for their daughters while living in London before moving back to India.
How much did The Good Glamm Group pay for The Moms Co.?
The figure is contested. YourStory and Business Today reported the 2021 deal as valuing The Moms Co. at around ₹500 crore (about $52 million at $1 ≈ ₹96.0) and described it as India’s largest D2C exit in beauty and personal care at the time, while Entrackr reported the actual cash-and-stock consideration at a lower ₹300–350 crore. Good Glamm took 75% in 2021, raised it to 90% in March 2023, and completed a 100% acquisition in November 2024.
What were The Moms Co.’s latest financials?
In FY23 — the most recent year independently reported from its RoC filing — The Moms Co. posted total revenue of ₹73.51 crore (operating revenue ₹71.22 crore), up 40.0% year on year, and a net loss of ₹64.38 crore, up 60%, on total expenses of ₹137.87 crore, per Inc42. FY24 accounts were not publicly filed at the time of writing.
Why did The Moms Co. end up for sale again?
Its owner, The Good Glamm Group, ran into a debt and cash crisis. On 23 July 2025, founder Darpan Sanghvi confirmed lenders were enforcing a brand-by-brand sale of the group, and Entrackr reported The Moms Co. was put up for sale alongside Organic Harvest and St. Botanica. Earlier, the founders and Indian Angel Network had issued default notices to Good Glamm over unpaid acquisition dues.
Who were The Moms Co.’s investors before the acquisition?
Its principal venture backers were DSG Consumer Partners and Saama Capital. At the time of the 2021 acquisition, Saama Capital held 30.10% and DSG Consumer Partners 22.62%, with the two founders holding 40.87% together and angel investors 6.41%, per Entrackr. Trackers place the brand’s total pre-acquisition funding at roughly $9–15 million across four to six rounds.
Sources
Figures are as of September 2026. Currency converted at $1 ≈ ₹96.0 as of 18 September 2026 (Trading Economics).
- Inc42, “The Moms Co FY23: Net Loss Jumps 60% To INR 64 Cr, Revenue Grows 38%” — FY22 and FY23 revenue, loss and expense breakdown, 2024
- Inc42, “The Moms Co Financials 2026 – Revenue, P&L & Cash Flow” — FY22/FY23 revenue, net loss, net margin, total assets, accessed September 2026
- Inc42, “The Moms Co — Funding, Revenue & Investors” — founding year, founders, HQ, funding total ($9M / 4 rounds), accessed September 2026
- Entrackr, “After POPxo and BabyChakra, Good Glamm Group acquires The Moms Co.” — 2021 deal value (₹300–350 crore), FY19/FY20 revenue, cap table, primary-capital pledge, October 2021
- Business Today, “The Moms Co’s founders hand over reins to Good Glamm Group” — stake raised to 90%, founder exit, ₹500 crore / “India’s largest D2C” framing, March 2023
- YourStory, “The Good Glamm Group acquires The Moms Co. in one of the largest D2C deals” — largest-D2C-exit claim, October 2021
- YourStory, “How a personal journey to find the right products for their children” — founding story and founders’ background, May 2021
- Business Standard, “The Good Glamm Group completes 100% acquisition of The Moms Co” — 100% acquisition, November 2024
- Entrackr, “Good Glamm Group to be split up as lenders enforce brand-wise sale” — group breakup, The Moms Co. up for sale, Sanghvi letter, July 2025
- Entrackr, “Sirona buys back brand from The Good Glamm Group” — default notices from The Moms Co. and IAN over unpaid dues, 2025
- Neon fund podcast, “The journey of a 100 cr D2C brand in India with The Moms Co. founders” — channel mix, SKUs, pin-code reach, offline share, funding total (founder-stated, circa 2021)
- Trading Economics, USD/INR reference rate — 18 September 2026
Found an error? Write to us and we’ll correct it in the open, dated, on the piece.