I am sorry for mistaking your writings (actually, the signature is not different from the posts, so I mistook, anyways, my bad!)

I completely agree and understand your point. I am not saying you are altogether wrong. But I must dare to say that your argument is rather shallow and superficial. There was a mistake done, and this mistake must have been acknowledge (that the man got a punishment for something else than he actually did).

Trying to say that three months is justified for domestic voilence is too arbitrary.

Instead of saying this, in order to be reasonable and logical, I would say, we should put it like this: this man definitely deserved to be punished. Because he took the law into his own hand by being abusive to his wife. His wife must also be taken into account as per the law (of course some unnecessarily intelligent people pointed out abortion is legal in a few countries, so be it).

I wonder why it is so hard for everyone of us to just admit that after listening to half of the story, it is natural to be tempted to say he deserved this treatment but after knowing the complete story, we should reconsider the punishment. If he deserved more punishment (for instance two more months), he should serve the remainder of the term as per the law. If he got more than he deserved, he should be compensated. That would be justice done.

Anyways, thank you all for contributing.