"Rolling pin under the pillow": can self-defense turn into a fine for domestic violence

Can a kitchen utensil kept under a pillow lead to a fine for domestic violence? In July, the Tatarbunary District Court issued a ruling that defines the boundary between a domestic quarrel and an administrative offense. The woman claimed she was defending herself from a drunken cohabitant, but the court found the elements of an administrative offense proven, raising again the question: where is the line between self-defense and domestic violence?

Unfortunately, today domestic violence remains one of the most hidden and at the same time difficult to prove categories of offenses. The ruling in case No. 515/752/26 is interesting not because of the fact of holding a person accountable, but because of the examination of the circumstances of "defense", where the main tool was a kitchen rolling pin that the woman kept under her pillow.

"Defense" with a rolling pin became an offense

According to the case materials, the conflict arose between cohabitants on the grounds of jealousy. The cohabitant came home intoxicated and tried to enter the woman’s room. After a verbal altercation accompanied by mutual profanity, the conflict escalated to a physical stage.

According to the explanations of the offender herself, the main object used during the conflict was a kitchen rolling pin she kept under her pillow. When the cohabitant kicked her, she used this object, striking him on the back, arm, and leg. Later, her son joined the conflict and, according to the victim’s testimony, hit him with an object resembling a bat.

During the case review, the court examined the administrative offense protocol, explanations of the cohabitants and a witness, the police report, risk assessment form, urgent restraining order, and video footage from a police officer’s body camera.

The court concluded that the woman’s actions contained elements of an offense under Part 1 of Article 173-2 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (CUAO). In making the decision, the judge relied on the provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention and Counteraction to Domestic Violence".

Thus, according to paragraph 14 of part 1 of article 1 of the Law, verbal insults and profanity that caused emotional insecurity and harm to mental health are a form of psychological violence.

And according to paragraph 17 of part 1 of article 1 of the Law, inflicting blows (in this case — with a wooden object) falls under the definition of physical violence.

The court emphasized that domestic violence can be committed between persons living together as one family but not married (paragraph 3 of part 1 of article 1 of the Law).

As a result, the woman’s actions were qualified as domestic violence, and the court found that her explanations did not refute the elements of the administrative offense.

Although the offender claimed she only defended herself after being kicked, the court concluded that her actions contained elements of an administrative offense under part 1 of article 173-2 of the CUAO. The police, in turn, assessed the level of domestic violence as medium, confirmed by the risk assessment form.

The court imposed a fine of 340.00 UAH (20 non-taxable minimum incomes) and collected a court fee of 665.60 UAH. Also, an urgent restraining order was issued against the woman for 1 day.

This is a typical situation for many domestic cases. In practice, there are cases when administrative materials are drawn up only against one participant in the conflict, even if the other side also used physical force. Such an approach does not always reflect the real dynamics of the conflict.

The line between defense and attack: why mutual violence requires a new legal assessment

The "rolling pin under the pillow" case is not just another fine for domestic violence. It illustrates how domestic quarrels quickly move into the legal sphere and serves as a reminder of the need for a more nuanced assessment of mutual conflicts in families.

The effectiveness of Article 173-2 of the CUAO in 2026 often clashes with the problem of so-called mutual violence. In situations where both sides use physical force, the qualification of events often causes debates both in law enforcement practice and among lawyers. In some cases, only one participant is held accountable, in others — both. However, behind such cases often lies a history of prolonged defense, which is legally qualified as an attack.

Case No. 515/752/26 demonstrates how difficult it is in domestic violence cases to prove that the use of force was necessary defense.

Practice shows that in such cases the key factors are the moment of force application, its proportionality to the nature of the threat, and proper documentation of the conflict circumstances. These factors often determine whether the court will consider a person’s actions as self-defense or as a separate offense.

Indeed, one of the most difficult issues in domestic violence cases remains distinguishing necessary defense from an administrative or criminal offense. The mere fact that a person used physical force in response to violence does not automatically mean their actions are lawful.

In practice, courts assess a set of circumstances, including:

• the moment of force application — whether there was a real threat at the time of the blows;
• proportionality of defense — whether the means used corresponded to the nature and intensity of the encroachment;
• presence of proper evidence — witness testimonies, medical documents, video recordings, police conclusions, and other materials.

In case No. 515/752/26, the court did not separately analyze the issue of necessary defense. It proceeded from the fact that the totality of the examined evidence confirms the woman’s commission of psychological and physical domestic violence, and her explanations do not refute the elements of the administrative offense.

Are new approaches needed?

There is an ongoing discussion in the legal community about improving approaches to assessing conflicts where both sides use physical force. In particular, there is debate about the need to pay more attention to establishing who was the initiator of violence, whether the conflict had a systemic nature, and whether the person was in a state of real necessity to defend themselves.

At the same time, the current version of Article 173-2 of the CUAO does not contain special rules for assessing such situations. Therefore, in each specific case, the court decides on responsibility based on the established circumstances and available evidence.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.