I can understand Elizabeth Hurley coming across as a bit of a Bridezilla in her recent marriage to Arun Nayar–brides tend to get really agitated when planning their weddings, so imagine how stressed Liz must have been planning TWO very lavish events. I can even partly empathise with the hurt Arun’s dad, Vinod Nayar, felt by his perceived maltreatment at his son’s nuptials (personally, I think Vinod and his wife, Joanne, are blowing this out of proportion and are doing themselves more harm than good by selling their personal feelings about their son’s bride to The Mail On Sunday).
This morning, however, any sympathy that I felt for Vinod and his wife has evaporated like incense into thin air. Vinod has decided to take a page out of the John Voight and Candy Spelling Book of Parenting and lend his support to a lawsuit against the couple for breaking Hindu tradition:
Miss Hurley, 41, and her husband Arun Nayar, have been accused of breaching Hindu customs with their Indian wedding – an allegation that could technically put them in jail.
And to make matters worse, it appears that Arun’s father Vinod is willing to testify against them.
Vishnu Khandelwal, a devout Hindu who is thought never to have met the couple, has begun legal proceedings against them, saying their lavish ceremony, held at the Meherangarh Fort in Rajastha last month, broke with custom.
Their £2million magazine deal with Hello!, which helped to cover the cost of the wedding, may be used as evidence against the couple.
Prosecuting lawyer HM Saraswat said: “An arrest warrant could be issued for Arun and Liz as soon as the prosecution has made its case – either because they are summonsed to give evidence or they have been found guilty.
“He [Vinod] contacted me and wants to get some help regarding this case. He wants to disclose some important facts.
“Vinod Nayar told me that when Arun Nayar and Liz Hurley came to the marriage mandap [marriage place], Arun Nayar left his footwear outside the mandap but Liz Hurley refused to remove her footwear.
“When we worship we must remove our shoes because we pray to God and at that time shoes should be removed. Our intention is to prove that the procedures adopted by both the accused for their marriage is against our Hindu rites.
“We have our own religious beliefs, including that the bride and bridegroom must behave soberly, and in this case they have both taken drink.
“Pictures of them kissing in Hello! magazine is against our culture also. We are using the Hello! pictures to prove our case.”
From The Daily Mail
Apparently, Hurley and her groom can be sentenced for up to three years if found guilty of a “deliberate and malicious act” against the religion. They can also be charged an unlimited fine if the judge presiding over the case believes there is a “prima facie” case to answer (meaning “at first sight”–yeah, I still don’t know what that means, either).
What kind of dad is willing to testify vindictively against his own son just because his son’s missus did not wear a necklace that he had made for her? We all get Vinod’s pride and honor were hurt, but surely this isn’t the best away to go about mending a relationship with your own children? At the end of the day, I doubt Liz or Arun will serve any jail time for this–Vinod and his wife are just going to end up looking petty and malicious as a result of their actions.
I don’t have too much sympathy for any of the people in this story. It’s all about blowing money with nothing to show for it but some photos, which I find pretty much detestable.
At least somebody spells “nuptials” correct! A +
Arun looks totally P.W.’d in that picture. I’d be willing to bet he is in real life as well, marrying that harpie.
This marraige is off to a sporting start. Liz married outside of her culture. She should respect the rules and traditions of another culture, if you don’t, then you will rankor the natives. That said, the parents should overlook a lot in order to maintain family harmony. THAT said, who the heck would want Liz Hurley, fembot, into any sane family? All I can say is I know who wears the pants in that family, it’s Bridezilla!
i am a british born indian (hindu) although v.westernised.
in my view – if you welcome or absorb yourself in anothers culture then customs should be respected.
in indian culture it is respectable to take of ones shoes when entering a temple – this is common knowledge.
liz h is a dumbass for not adhering – poss because she didnt want to look short – superfical bitch.
I agree with jinty. If you marry into a different culture, you have to respect the customs, particularly if you want your wedding ceremony to be conducted in accordance with their customs. Liz wanted a BIG fairy tale, not a real Indian wedding. I always knew she was pushy and lacked sensitivity. I don’t think this marriage will last.
Just FYI….
A prima facie showing just means that you present to the court basic evidence that shows you actually have a case. It pretty much is a way of throwing out cases very early on that have no merit whatsoever.
I don’t see why she wouldn’t just take off the silly shoes and wear the necklace.
In Madras/Chennai in South India, we even had to take our shoes off in the church.
Our favorite was the Sikh temple–they had sinks and little pools outside so you could wash your feet and hands before going in. They lent us coverings for our heads and offered to feed us.
FYI: “Anon” touched on this, but Jessie, since you seemed unclear – “prima facie” can be translated as “on its face”. It means that the facts of a case speak for themselves, but unlike Anon’s comment, it can actually help keep a case in court. Example: a sponge is found in a patient’s body cavity after surgery. You’ve made a prima facie case that the doctor incorrectly left the sponge in the patient, because any other explanation for the sponge’s presence would be implausible.
In any case, the religious suit seems a bit extreme. I believe in respecting cultures, but like any other country, India is a country of contradictions – child prostitution is sizeable there, and widows are traditionally banished and mistreated after their husbands die. Despite any religious prosecutors, I think these are greater offenses that could be punished.
While Liz is probably a total Bridezilla biatch, she doesn’t need to completely conform to her husband’s culture!! He is marrying into a culture, too (plus, he’s the result of a mixed marriage).
Liz should have respected the customs……..
Now it upto the family n courts to decide..
may good faith prevail.