The underlying homophobia in the late bride’s family statements (also from the SA prosecutors & general reporting) is kind of sickening.
As though sleeping with men or being bisexual equates guilt by default.
No other proof needed. (And if you read the evidence presented by the prosecution, it was about as tenuous as that)
“While Shrien can return to his home in Bristol as a free man, Anni’s family are now considering bringing a civil claim against him. Anni’s father, Vinod Hindocha, has asked a lawyer in London to pursue legal action against Shrien for the costs of the couple’s £200,000 wedding and for the loss of his daughter.
“Which father in the world, including me, would allow their daughter to marry a person who sleeps with men?” asked Hindocha. “Now we have the truth and that he has literally deceived the whole family.”
Sure, why would she have any say in it as a adult and a free human.
Secondly if the father was foolish enough to burn his money on some tasteless shaadi theatre production to prove some tragic point to the Singh’s next door, he only has himself to blame.
£200,000 wedding and now he wants to recoup his losses as a punishment for the man being ‘bi-sexual’? Underlining that marriage, after all, is a business.
I think Mr. H. deceived mostly himself.
So keen to fire her off to her future owner in style.
I mean, what would people say if she was unmarried or if he had spent less money on a smaller wedding?