As Chandrettan Evideya continues its march at the box office, there comes a spanner in the works. Reportedly a housewife from Thiruvananthapuram has complained against the makers of the film with the police and court and asked that the screening of the film be stopped.
The reason is that the mobile number purportedly shown to be heroine Namitha Pramod’s number belongs to the said housewife who has been besieged with calls and messages, some even vulgar, day and night. Apparently the callers were under the impression that the number belonged to Namitha herself.
The film is directed by Sidharth Bharathan and produced by Sameer Thahir, Shyju Khalid and Ashiq Usman. Speaking about the issue Ashiq says, “I got to hear of this news from a channel and nobody has informed us directly. As far as we know the number used belongs to an assistant director in the film. In fact he was getting calls and WhatsApp messages till yesterday. I really don’t understand how the woman claims that this is her number. We are trying to find out what happened and even if there was a mistake, it was never done intentionally to harm or defame anybody. We would never ever purposefully give out a number to cause trouble to any person.” The housewife apparently runs a driving school in the capital.
Ashiq mentions that a similar incident unfolded during the time Traffic was released and the number given was actually director Rajesh Pillai’s mobile number and he in turn received numerous calls asking if the number was Remya Nambeesan’s? Ashiq asks, “I don’t understand how people can be under the mistaken impression that we would use Namitha’s or Remya’s real number in films. The mobile numbers used in such scenes usually belong to a male person connected with the film.”
Denying that he has received any intimation from any legal authority Ashiq adds, “The lady could have called any one of us first and clarified the issue instead of speaking about it to channels. I also heard some unconfirmed rumours that she is planning to file a '50 lakh defamation case against the film.”
