Domestic and intimate partner violence

The Criminal and Criminal Procedural Codes of Ukraine were amended in December 2017 to adopt provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention). As a result of these amendments, new dangerous acts were criminalized. For example, Article 151-2 supplemented the special part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine by providing criminal liability for forced marriage.

This legislation introduces the concept of “domestic violence,” which is defined as act (or omission) of physical, sexual, psychological, or economic violence (intentional deprivation of housing, food, clothing, other property, funds or documents or the ability to use them; leaving without care; hampering the receipt of necessary treatment or rehabilitation services; prohibition of, or compulsion to, work; prohibition of studies; and other offenses of an economic nature) committed within a family or between relatives, or between spouses or ex-spouses, former or current spouses, or other per

The plaintiff-wife filed a lawsuit for divorce on the grounds of lack of mutual understanding, and loss of love and respect for her husband, the defendant. During the trial, the plaintiff referred, among other things, to the fact that The defendant had repeatedly used physical violence against her, humiliated her honor and dignity, and insulted her, including in front of her co-workers at her workplace. The defendant objected to the divorce because he had certain religious beliefs, according to which marriage is for life and its termination is forbidden by God.

            Spouses who have children may file to a competent court a divorce application supported by a written agreement detailing with whom the children will live following the divorce, to what extent the other parent will support the children, and the other parent's right to care for the children. The competent court shall award a divorce one month following the submission of the divorce application, if it is established that the divorce application is in line with the genuine intent of the wife and husband.

Article 24 of the Family Code of Ukraine specifies that marriage requires the consent of the woman and the man, free from coercion. “Voluntary marriage” is a rather broad concept, which includes the right to freely decide to enter and maintain marriage, as well as to dissolve a marriage and terminate marital relations. At the same time, the Family Code requires that a court declare a marriage null and void if it was registered without the free consent of either party.

The ex-husband (the defendant) systematically committed domestic violence against the complainant – his ex-wife: beating her, threatening to kill her and the children and to burn down the building where she was living with the children). For his illegal behavior (systematic domestic violence), he was jailed for four months (this type of punishment involves keeping a person in isolation for 1-6 months).

The appellant went to court to deprive the defendant, her husband, of parental rights of their children. According to her, the defendant was not paying sufficient attention to the upbringing, health, and development of their child as well as failed to pay child support. Furthermore, there were conflicts between the spouses that had a negative impact on the child.

The plaintiff turned to court for a restraining order against the defendant, her husband, to keep him away from their joint place of residence and remove obstacles to her using the car that was purchased during their marriage and belonged to the plaintiff. She argued that, although they were officially married, the marital relationship between them had effectively ended. The husband constantly resorted to economic and physical violence against her, taking away funds and preventing her from earning money for her living expenses and treatment on her own.

The abuser inflicted multiple blows on the defendant with fists, feet, and a wooden bat, threatening her life and health. After that, the man grabbed an ax and threatened to kill her. To prevent this, the defendant wrenched the ax from the offender and, when the latter fell to the floor, hit him with it at least 36 times, which resulted in his death. During the examination of the case, the lawyer argued that the defendant was acting in self-defense and therefore the killing was a result of exceeding the limits of necessary self-defense (Art.