A woman who bit and scratched her older husband and nearly cost him one of his testicles has been handed a suspended sentence for what a court described as a "frenzied attack".
The 71-year-old was attacked by his wife, 20 years his junior, as they argued and bickered at their apartment in September 2017.
As the man tried to get past his wife towards the kitchen, she had attacked him.
She punched him on his head, pulled at his hair, scratched and bit him, a court heard.
The man suffered scratches on his legs, hands and chest besides being kicked on the leg while the woman dug her teeth into his arm.
"She continued to shake her head whilst my arm was firmly in her mouth," the victim recalled.
She continued to shake her head whilst my arm was firmly in her mouth
She then slipped her hands inside her husband’s shorts and "started pulling like crazy", a court heard.
Her long nails cut into the flesh, and the victim ended up suffering lacerations to his genitalia to such an extent that one testicle was almost lost.
Once the attack was over, the man retired to his bedroom. There, he realised the extent of his injuries, as he caught sight of his blood-stained bedclothes.
He made his way to a nearby polyclinic, where he was found to be running a fever, besides manifesting multiple scratches and bruises.
Later tests at Mater Dei Hospital confirmed the extent of his injuries, a preliminary report stating that the left testicle had been lost. It was only weeks later that further tests proved otherwise.
Criminal action was taken against the alleged aggressor who was charged for grievous bodily harm upon her husband without intending to place his life in manifest danger.
After hearing the testimony of both husband and wife, Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech concluded that the accused’s version was “incredulous at best.”
When testifying, the woman had denied the violence outright, stating “I knew nothing about the injuries,” prompting the court to remark that her testimony “jars dramatically with reality.”
Whereas the woman’s account was “nothing but a product of fiction,” and therefore “unsafe and unsatisfactory,” the victim’s version was “fully corroborated by medical findings and this to the minutest detail,” the court observed.
Professing “zero tolerance to domestic violence”, the magistrate concluded that the accused had failed to convince the court of her “genuineness and credibility.”
“There is to be no place for such demented actions, for frenzied attacks on persons who due to age or other circumstances can’t even be assured protection within the confines of their own homes, attacks on individuals who suffer aggression from those to whom they entrust their care and companionship. The accused’s aggressive conduct towards her spouse, 20 years her elder, went a long way in undermining the legal maxim that a ‘man's house is his castle’!” the court declared.
The fact that the woman was a first-time offender was the only reason she would be spared jail time, the court went on, handing down a two-year jail term suspended for four years.
The court also placed the woman under a two-year treatment order to “address her violent outbursts,” whilst further placing her under a three-year restraining order.