ORDER : Heard Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Nagmani Tiwari. learned APP for the State and Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. 2. This application is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.02.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I. Sanibganj in Cr. Appeal No. 43 of 2014, whereby the order dated 16.04.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate. Sahibganj in connection with P.R. Case No. 106 of 2012 (T.R. No. 215 of 2014 allowing the application preferred by the opposite party No.2 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 2005 has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the opposite party No. 2 himself admitted that there was a family partition and therefore the question of the petitioner usurping the entire property of the father-in-law of the opposite party No. 2 becomes redundant. It has further been stated that all the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 are related to her. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of the opposite party No. 2 and if the version of the opposite party No.2 is taken to be correct, the petitioner was the original owner of the house in question and therefore no case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is made out. It has further been submitted that complaint cases being P.C.R. Case No. 149 of 2009 and P.C.R. Case No. 151 of 2010 had been instituted by opposite party No.2. Learned counsel thus submits that institution of several cases including the present one points to the fact that the opposite party No.2 by some means or the other wants to grab the property left by her father-in-law. It has also been submitted that a suit being Partition Suit No. 46 of 2014 has also been filed by the husband of the opposite party No.2. 4. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has submitted that the opposite party No. 2 was ousted from the house in which her husband also had his share. It has been stated that all the witnesses including AW 3 and AW 5 had supported this fact. 5. It has been stated that all the witnesses including AW 3 and AW 5 had supported this fact. 5. It appears that the case of the petitioner is that her husband was running a saloon in one of the rooms of their portion of the house belonging to her father-in-law. It has been stated in the month of April, 2009, when the opposite party• No. 2 was living in the said house, the petitioner had caused damage to the Saloon of her husband for which a complaint case being P.C.R. Case No. 129 of 2009 was lodged, which resulted in conviction of the petitioner. Since the opposite party No. 2 was abused and assaulted and ousted from her husband's share of the property, she filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The teamed Judicial Magistrate had allowed such application and had given certain direction which was affirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2014. Opposite party No.2 had produced several witnesses who all have supported the factum of ouster from her matrimonial house. It further appears that the petitioner has been alleged to have destroyed the Saloon which was run by the husband of the opposite party No.2. Although it has been stated by the husband of the opposite party No. 2 that he had received a portion of the plot as part of his share, but the same was sold for the treatment of his child, but the, same by itself would not divest the husband of the opposite party No. 2 to claim his share in the property as it has also been noted in the impugned order that partition suit had already been filed at the instance of the opposite party No. 2. It further appears from the evidence of the witnesses that father-in-law of the opposite party was a Govt. employee and he was getting handsome pension, but he was compelled to run a Saloon which subsequently was destroyed at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner has also failed to bring on record any deed of partition or any document which would substantiate the fact that the family property had already been partitioned. No doubt there appears to be some discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses, but the same being minor in nature would not dilute the case of the opposite party No.2. No doubt there appears to be some discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses, but the same being minor in nature would not dilute the case of the opposite party No.2. 6. Both the learned Courts below have on proper consideration of the documentary as well as oral evidences come to a finding with respect to the truthfulness of the allegation made by the opposite party No. 2 and had issued certain directions. The impugned order therefore being in accordance with law requires no interference. Accordingly having found no merit in this application the same is hereby dismissed. Application dismissed.