On perusal of evidence adduced by the parties, Learned Trial Court found that complainant was a victim of domestic violence and a prima-facie case of domestic violence was made out against husband/R-1. It was found that there were no specific allegations against father-in-law/R-2 and no case of domestic violence was made out against Ajay Gupta/R-5 (nandoi). Similarly no case is made out against Smt. Urmil Gupta (R-3) and Smt.Anju Gupta (R-4). Learned trial Court further noted that appellant/complainant was residing separately since 05.10.2004 and there were no complaints during the intervening period or even prior to that for commission of domestic violence by the respondents. I was found that husband/R-1 was residing in the house of his parents and had no separate accommodation. Similarly, appellant/complainant was residing with her parents and wasfinancially independent. Trial Court found that both the parties were financially equally placed, therefore, no maintenance order was passed. Residence order was also declined for the reason that appellant/complainant was a Government servant, who was also entitled to House Rent Allowance (HRA). Learned Trial Court found that appellant/complainant had not placed on record any proof that she suffered injury due to alleged harassment caused by the respondents. In view of the aforesaid reasons, no relief was granted to appellant/complainant.”