Hello, according to what you said, fighting between the two sides is legally recognized as a passionate act, and subjectively defined as indirect intention in law.
First of all, let me help you analyze B's problem, because you said that B's comminuted fracture of lumbar spine and lumbar cone was an old disease many years ago, and A's hand made it recur, but because A subjectively didn't know that B had the disease, although it objectively caused the recurrence of the disease, it didn't mean to make it recur subjectively, so it was wrong to cause him to relapse.
Let me help you analyze Party A's problem: If what you say is true, Party A may commit perjury in criminal law, and Party B can claim that Party A's claim is illegal and untrue in court. Besides, Party B has witnesses, and I believe the court will examine this request clearly.
For this kind of mutual injury in passionate behavior, our judicial practice is mostly based on the principle of equal responsibility of both parties, because the parties are adults with full civil liability and criminal liability, and they should have a clear understanding of their actions.
To sum up, the court's decision is relatively fair. In this argument, both sides are at fault. It may be that A provoked the contradiction first, and B fought with each other instead of solving it by legal means, so she also had to bear a responsibility.
But for A's unreasonable demands, B must explain to the court that he should use legal weapons to safeguard his legitimate rights and interests.
I hope my answer can help you. Impulsive killing. This sentence is true:) I wish you a good mood every day:)