In the present investigation, it is argued that it is unfortunate to include cohabitants in the category of family members as stipulated in art.1331 PC RM. The legal recognition of identical effects means to undermine the marriage by recognizing cohabitation as a legal alternative. Further on, there is shown that the position of family membership must be at the time of the offence perpetration. If this position has terminated (for example, the position of spouse (wife) has ceased as a result of dissolution of marriage by divorce), the act can not be qualified according to art.2011 PC RM (in case of separate living). Also, this provision can not be applied, if the offender and victim were bound legally by a null relationship (for example, a marriage invalid due to bigamy). Similarly, it is argued that it can not be qualified under art.2011 PC RM the sex violence in the form of an offense as provided by let. b2) par.(2) art.171, let. b2) par.(2) art.172, art.173, 174 or 175 PC RM. In such cases, the qualification will be performed only under one of these rules, without applying art.2011 PC RM. It is shown that in the context of the aggravating circumstance specified at let.a) par.(2) art.2011 PC RM, the intention to commit domestic violence on two or more family members must be accomplished either until the domestic violence committed over the first victim or in the process of action (inaction) of committing the domestic violence over the first victim, but not thereafter. Otherwise, the committed will form the competition between two or more domestic violence offenses. There is also argued in favor of the fact that compared with all the aggravating circumstances described at par.(2) and (3) art.2011 PC RM, the offender shows intention. The expression of carelessness is not possible, based on systematic interpretation of sanctions stipulated at art.145, 149-152, art.2011 PC RM, as well as based on the legal essence of the offence of domestic violence.