Not appropriate, but necessary to get out of the sittuation.

That cannot be true unless she saw absolutely no other way like he was a powerful and well-known figure in the community and she literally had nowhere to go to, no family, no friends and not one social service or public service that she was aware of. Unless that was the case, what she did was revenge and completely unnecessary to get out of the situation and revenge cannot be just, it's only a lust for blood, a thirst to undo what cannot be undone, and if not, it would simply be self-defence and justified as such by the situation such as in our hypothetical case if and only if she saw absolutely no other way out, which isn't want the example was about or implied by the concept of "taking the law into your own hands".

Some women in this sittuation retaliate when the man is asleep.

And that is taking justice in their hands and removing any doubt that it was simply done in malice and with the intent of enacting revenge. They will have time to think about that by themselves.

The other in a direct reaction to the humiliation. In this case, it is defense.

If it was self-defence it wouldn't need any interpretation since people can readily recognize if an act was unnecessary or necessary, and if it is revenge, people will see that it's unnecessary and if it was an Appropriate Response of Force to defend from an Attack, they will see that it was self-defence, but if it was excessive, they might still throw them in a cage for man-slaughter,

Manslaughter is a common law legal term for homicide considered by law as less culpable than murder.

I disagree. Past records a lot of murders pardoned by the independent courts.

If it wasn't a murder it would be self-defence or manslaughter, no and's, if's or but's about it.