Originally posted by: shilpa4eva
hey yaar no worries........if anyone has an oppsite view u mine...they are more than welcome to say so.............regarding ur comment i myself didnt agree on sum pointz
firstly the one in blue.................now u say no women tolerate having a husband hu was in a serious relationship..............but she herself was in a serious relationship so she shud be able to easily relate to this.......we know she was not as intimate as AR....but wat if he turned around n sed well prove ur relationship with angad is pure............how wud she have proved it.............. she cudnt it wud have jus bin her wordz to jusify that in actual fact that is the case..........i jus think she shud have demanded an explanation n not accuse their relationship where two ppl are involved n not jus armaan allow.....................now to the part in red..............yep i 100% agree he shud have tld her he was in the wrong to keep her in the dark.....................i personally wasnt satisfied with armaanz way of thinking...he sez to kripa that he had a duty towards her..........but he also has a duty towards ridhima as he is married to her too...whether it is or not socially accepted the bottom line is he is married to her .........he had one year to get close to kripa which he didnt knowing that she wasnt ready but he shud have givn sum kind of hint that hez willin to take der relationship to the next level wen ever she wants........he didnt as he himself wasnt ova ridhima but to say now wen kripaz found out that he was waiting for a move from her side n he was willing to forget ridhima........i felt that was a bit of a cowardz way out of this messu know the funny thing is....i dont know whether i have justified my way of thinking or confused u even more.....feel free 2 reply back if u disagree😊
35