Tuesday, 10 November 2026

'UPA 2.0 Brought Personal Challenges': Sonia Gandhi On Beating Cancer Twice

Sonia Gandhi said that she was advised by doctors to have an operation for suspected breast cancer in 2010 and that her "mind began to race to a possible scary outcome" after she was told there was no time to lose.

NDTV

7 hours ago · 1 min read★ 3.6 trust

WhatsApp X

Read the full story at NDTV.

More stories

Health

Around 150 persons treated for cracker-related burns in Vellore, nearby districts

A large volume of cracker waste was also generated in these districts

The Hindu·5 hours ago·2 min read

Health

Woman, son die after being found injured at home in Mattannur

You don’t have any Active Subscription. Subscribed with another email? Logout and Login with that one. Your active subscription(s) Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription Products you've access to Additional Subscription Benefits Need help with your subscription? Published - November 10, 2026 11:34 pm IST - KANNUR A 56-year-old woman and her 21-year-old son died on Tuesday (November 10) after they were found with serious wounds at their home in Mattannur. The deceased were identified as Jyothi and Naveen Krishna. Jyothi’s husband, Jayakrishnan, reportedly found them lying in a pool of blood on the second floor of their house on Lions Club Road when he returned home after visiting Mattannur town around 9.30 a.m. The police and residents rushed to the house and took the two to the hospital. The police said both were in an extremely critical condition on the way to the hospital. The Mattannur police have registered a case and stepped up the investigation. Published - November 10, 2026 11:34 pm IST Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments. We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.

The Hindu·5 hours ago·1 min read

Health

Woman says she spent $80,000 in marriage; court upholds $1,000 monthly support

A Pennsylvania appeals court has upheld an order requiring a man to pay his former wife $1,000 (£770) per month in alimony for three years. The court rejected his argument that the five years of temporary financial support he had already paid during their divorce proceedings was enough. The ruling by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld a financial order issued after the divorce by the Adams County Court of Common Pleas in the case of Cathell v. Cathell, filed under case number 491 MDA 2026. According to official court records published on Justia Law, James D. Cathell appealed the lower court's decision to award monthly alimony to his former wife, Lisa M. Cathell. James argued that the couple had been married for eight years and that he had already paid temporary spousal support, known as alimony pendente lite (APL), for five years while the divorce case was ongoing. He said requiring him to pay another three years of alimony was unreasonable. However, the appeals court agreed with the lower court. The judges found that Lisa's financial contributions during the marriage and her reduced ability to earn money justified the continued monthly payments. Marital savings spent on husband's home James and Lisa Cathell married on 8 February 2012. They remained together for eight years before separating, according to court records. During their marriage, Lisa used around $80,000 (£61,500) from her personal retirement savings, which she had built up before the marriage. Court records show that she used the money to help pay household expenses and make improvements to a residential property owned solely by her husband. The trial court noted that Lisa had used up her life savings during the marriage. As a result, she had no retirement savings left when the divorce proceedings took place. When dividing the couple's marital assets, the Adams County court awarded Lisa 63 per cent of the total. Despite receiving this share, Lisa told the court during a hearing on 30 June 2025 that her financial situation had become much worse after the separation. "She explained that she was seeking alimony for support for the next couple of years because she was a housewife for most of her life and did not make a lot of money," the court memorandum stated. Lisa also told the court that she was living on a limited income and struggling to earn enough to pay for her basic needs. Appellate court dismisses husband's appeal In his appeal to the Superior Court, James argued that Lisa was able to work full-time and keep a job. He pointed out that she did not have any physical disability or medical condition that stopped her from working. James also argued that Lisa had already received 63 per cent of the marital assets and five years of temporary spousal support. He said that making him pay another three years of alimony would mean he had to provide financial support for a total of eight years, the same length as their marriage. The Superior Court judges reviewed the legal factors used by the lower court when deciding whether to award alimony. These factors include the financial needs of the person receiving support, the standard of living during the marriage, and the paying spouse's ability to afford the payments. The court's opinion also noted that the divorce hearing officer had concerns about James's credibility during his testimony. By comparison, Lisa's behaviour and presentation during the hearing were considered satisfactory. The judges concluded that the trial court had made the right decision by considering Lisa's financial needs alongside James's ability to pay."Regardless of that error, the record supports Wife's position that she has difficulty supporting herself more so than Husband," the Superior Court panel wrote in its decision upholding the Adams County court's order. The court also explained that under Pennsylvania family law, alimony payments can be changed in the future. This may happen if either person experiences a major and lasting change in their financial situation.

Times of India·5 hours ago·3 min read