JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Sec. 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act of 1984' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 17.10.2006 passed by the learned Judge. Family Court, Jodhpur (for short 'Family Court' hereinafter) dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Sec. 7 of the Act of 1984. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that Section 7 of the Act of 1984 deals with the jurisdiction. A suit or proceeding for maintenance is maintainable under Sec. 7 of the Act of 1984. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is a specific provision under Sec. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955' hereinafter), which deals with permanent alimony and maintenance and sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act of 1955 is very specific for varying, modifying or rescinding the order granting maintenance under Sec. 24 of the Act of 1955. Subjection (2) of Section 25 provides that if the Court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may, at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such a manner as the Court may deem just. 5. The provision of Section 25 of the Act of 1955 is almost analogous to Section 127(1) of the Cr.P.C. The proceedings between the parties are still pending before the Family Court and the grievance of the appellant is against the order granting maintenance under Sec. 24 of the Act contending that the order is erroneous for the reason that the respondent, who is wife of the appellant, is a General Manager of Hotel Abhay Days, Jodhpur and she herself is capable for maintaining her, as her income is reasonably sufficient to maintain her, therefore, the Family Court ought to have entertained and decided the application under Sec. 7 of the Act of 1984 and vary the order granting maintenance. 6. 6. Keeping in view the provision noticed above, in our opinion the proper course for the appellant is to move before the Family Court under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act of 1955 and not under Sec. 7 of the Act of 1984. 7. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is permitted to move before the Family Court under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act of 1955 and if such application is made, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law by the Family Court expeditiously.Appeal Dismissed. *******