( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the husband-defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 15th February 2004 passed by Third Additional District Judge, morena, in Civil Suit No. 39-A/2002, whereby the Court below has allowed, an application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and granted divorce en the ground of cruelty. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent-wife filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging that she married with the defendant on 8-11-1997 at Morena as per the Hindu rites. According to her the engagement ceremony was held at Morena in February 1997 and a number of articles were given by her parents to the defendant at that time. After marriage she went to Aligarh with her husband on 9-11-1997 and resided with him for nearly one month. She found that her husband was habitual of drinking and when she tried to stop him from drinking he started her harassing and assaulting but she did not tell this fact to her parents for a number of days. But, when it became intolerable she Informed this fact to her parents and her brother Suresh went Aligarh to bring her but the husband refused to send wife and abused him and made a demand for motorcycle or Rs. 50,000/- in cash. Thereafter, the parents of the wife took her to their house with the help of some other persons but the husband again took her back by giving assurance that he will treat her well. But, she could not live with her husband for more than one month. In the month of December 99 the husband caused her injuries by iron rods and burnt her with hot iron plate. Ultimately, she left her husband's house on 31-5-2001 and then filed the present petition for divorce at Morena. ( 3 ) THE defendant filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the petition. The defendant has also raised a plea about territorial jurisdiction. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings framed as many as nine issues and passed the decree for divorce by the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. ( 4 ) THE only argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant before this Court is about the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings framed as many as nine issues and passed the decree for divorce by the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. ( 4 ) THE only argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant before this Court is about the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. According to the counsel for the appellant the divorce petition was filed by the wife on 21-8-2002 and according to him as per Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act prevailing on the date of filing of the divorce petition the Morena Court had no jurisdiction to decide the present case. As per Section 19 an application for divorce can be filed at any of the four places - (i) the place where the marriage was solemnized, (ii) the place where the respondent, at the time of presentation of petition resides, (Hi) the place where the parties to the marriage last resided together and (iv) at the place where the petitioner is residing at the time of presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive. ( 5 ) IN the present case the petition was filed at Morena on the allegations that the marriage was solemnized at Morena. From the allegations it is clear that husband and wife last resided together at Aligarh. It is also admitted fact that respondent-husband is resident of Aligarh. According to the respondent the marriage was solemnised at Aligarh and not at Morena, hence Morena Court had no jurisdiction. ( 6 ) THE trial Court after appreciating evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the marriage between the parties was solemnised at Aligarh. This finding is recorded by the trial Court in para 9 it is judgment. For arriving at this finding the trial court has considered the photographs Exs. D-1 to D-9. Article D-1 is CD, which shows that marriage has taken place at Sindhi dharmashala, Aligarh, Statement of D. W. 2, shayamsunder Sharma, who was a Pandit who solemnised the marriage of the present parties and marriage-card, which is not exhibited. For arriving at this finding the trial court has considered the photographs Exs. D-1 to D-9. Article D-1 is CD, which shows that marriage has taken place at Sindhi dharmashala, Aligarh, Statement of D. W. 2, shayamsunder Sharma, who was a Pandit who solemnised the marriage of the present parties and marriage-card, which is not exhibited. The trial Court has however held that as the engagement ceremony had taken place at Morena, therefore, the Morena Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. This approach of the trial Court on its face cannot be sustained because once the statute lays down the place to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction this Court cannot create a jurisdiction in a Court which has no jurisdiction. ( 7 ) IN reply to this argument counsel for the respondent has relied upon Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As per the said section if the objection about the territorial jurisdiction is not raised at the earliest opportunity then the same cannot be permitted to be raised at a later stage. But, this is not a position in the present case. In the present case the petition about the territorial jurisdiction is raised by the defendant in his written statement and an issue was framed on the said objection and the trial Court found that marriage had taken place at Aligarh and not at Morena. In such circumstances the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant has no force. ( 8 ) NEXT contention raised by the counsel for the respondent is that Section 19 of the hindu Marriage Act is now stands amended w. e. f. 23-12-2003 and as per amendment in Section 19 of the Act now a divorce petition can be filed at a place where the wife, if she is a petitioner, is residing on the date of presentation of the petition. Counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that on the date when the judgment was pronounced the Morena Court has jurisdiction to try the case. ( 9 ) NOW, the question is whether the said amendment is prospective and will apply to the present case or is retrospective in nature. For this purpose it is necessary to refer the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003 whereby Section 19 (1) (iiia) is introduced. ( 9 ) NOW, the question is whether the said amendment is prospective and will apply to the present case or is retrospective in nature. For this purpose it is necessary to refer the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003 whereby Section 19 (1) (iiia) is introduced. ( 10 ) NOW, it will have to be found whether the amendment is retrospective in effect or is prospective. The Apex Court in the case of Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah choudhary, AIR 1957 SC 540 has laid down that if the amendment in law is substantive in nature then the said amendment is always prospective. However, if the amendment is a procedure in nature the said amendment is generally prospective. In the present case right to file a suit at a particular stage is a substantive right and not a procedure. Hence, the said amendment cannot be said to be retrospective unless and until the statute itself makes it retrospective. This Court in case of Bhagwandas v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1994 Jab L J 320 has laid down the same test. This Court in para 17 of its judgment has held that substantive law defines remedy and right while law of procedure defines the modes and conditions of the application of one to the other. Prima facie every statute is prospective unless made retrospective by expressed words or necessary implications. ( 11 ) CONSIDERING the above views laid down by the Apex Court and this Court it will be necessary to refer the provisions of the Amendment Act. Section 6 of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003 deals with transitory provision. The said section reads as under :-Section 6 of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act 2003 reads as under :-"6. Transitory provision.- All decrees and orders made by the Court in any proceedings under the Special Marriage Act or the Hindu Marriage Act shall be governed under the provisions contained in Section 3 or Section 5, as the case may be, as if this act came into operation at the time of the institution of the suit : provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a decree or order in which the time for appealing has expired under the Special marriage Act or the Hindu Marriage Act at the commencement of this Act. " ( 12 ) FROM a bare reading of these provisions it is clear that by Section 6, Section 3 and Section 5 of the Amending Act are made retrospective while the amendment in Section 19 whereto Section 19 (1) (iiia) is incorporated by Section 2 of the Amending Act and is not made retrospective. This clearly shows the intention of the Legislature to make provision of Section 19 (1) (iiia) as prospective and not retrospective. Hence, on the date on which the proceedings were initiated the Court at Morena had no jurisdiction and, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree has been rendered without jurisdiction. ( 13 ) IN the result, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and it is directed that the plaint be returned to the respondent wife for presentation before the court of Competent jurisdiction. It is also made clear that in view of the fact that now morena Court has jurisdiction to try the case the respondent wife is free to again present the said suit at Morena Court. ( 14 ) THUS, this appeal stands allowed with no orders as to costs. Appeal allowed. .