We all remember taking notice in January about the little rumour mill out in the possibility that Kangana Ranaut and Hrithik Roshan had been romantically involved in the past.

And now, what started with a rumour has begun morphing into a big-deal legal mess.

Kangana’s comment on how she was no longer being considered for Aashiqui 3 was that “exes do silly things to get your attention,” hinting slyly toward the film’s lead actor, Hrithik Roshan.

He promptly took to twitter to clarify.

Ther r more chances of me having had an affair with d Pope dan any of d (Im sure wonderful)women d media hs ben naming.Thanks but no thanks.

— Hrithik Roshan (@iHrithik) January 28, 2016

After this tweet the he-said-she-said action is back.

Krrish had his lawyer send a legal notice her way, accusing her of defamation.

The notice included a recommendation that Kangana issue a public apology to him, and announce that she did not in fact hint at him in her remarks from January, and threatened to make all their correspondence public if this wasn’t complied with.

At this she had bluntly said:

Yes, many lame rumours are doing the rounds, even a dumbass can tell where these rumours are coming from. I don’t know why exes do silly things to get your attention. For me, that chapter is over and I don’t dig graves.

And that definitely didn’t go down well with Hrithik as he took to Twitter to express his anguish about it. He had tweeted again:

“There are more chances of me having an affair with d Pope dan any of d (Im sure wonderful) women d media hs ben naming. Thanks but no thanks.”

Clearly, things were already ugly between Hrithik and Kangana and now, they’ve turned uglier.

Kangana in turn has also sent him her own legal notice accusing him of intimidation.

She stated that she has not named Hrithik anywhere and claims that none of her actions can therefore be termed as defamation.

When all this hadn’t been settled in our brains… Reportedly, Hrithik has mentioned in his statement that he has recieved 1,439 “senseless, personal and absurd” emails from her and how he chose not to respond to them for the longest time.

The superstar also took to Twitter to share a photo of his breakfast and also dished out a couple of bizarre diet tips to his fans. Check these out. He twitted:

Diet? Here. Breakfast of champions( not really) n I didn’t touch d toast! makes up 4 last nites kitkat! #Prague pic.twitter.com/IUqxNSjyLo

— Hrithik Roshan (@iHrithik) March 16, 2016

Eat nothing. That way u don’t even have to brush your teeth #lazybum (with love) https://t.co/qYmzfzT9JT

— Hrithik Roshan (@iHrithik) March 15, 2016

Use a lighter and light a Pringle. It burns like a candle for minutes. That’s all the FAT. Try it https://t.co/DlmVoFdQ8M

— Hrithik Roshan (@iHrithik) March 16, 2016

Now, the 21 page notice filed by Kangana’s lawyer reveals that if Hrithik makes their personal correspondence public (like he has threatened to do so in his notice), then the actor can be put behind bars for 10 years! Kangana’s lawyer has charged Hrithik under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, which reads as –

Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeal to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees.

Apart from this, her lawyer has also incorporated Section 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code, which is

Defamation, and the subsequent punishment for the same is imprisonment up to 2 years or fine or both.
AND
Section 506- Punishment of Criminal Intimidation to impute unchastity to a woman, which has a prison term up to 7 years or payment of a suitable fine, or both.

Well, I’m not sure who’s in the right here, guys. But I’m sure there’s a more dignified way of settling it. Here’s hoping they find it!