JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 22nd December, 2016. An application preferred by the respondent raising objection about submission of the documents by the petitioner along with written arguments has been allowed. 2. It is a case where both the parties led their evidence and after conclusion of the proceedings, even arguments of the parties were heard followed by submission of written arguments by the petitioner. Certain documents were submitted along with written arguments though were not part of the evidence. The respondent filed an application to raise objection about submission of new documents. At that stage, the petitioner made an application to accept the documents on record. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955"), evidence and the documents can be submitted at any point of time. In view of the above, the court below should not have rejected the application made by the petitioner for acceptance of the documents on record. It may be even after keeping the matter for final arguments and the arguments. The documents were crucial to the controversy raised by the parties about custody of the child thus application should have been allowed. A prayer is, accordingly, made to set aside the order dated 22nd December, 2016 with acceptance of the application made by the petitioner. 4. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel and perused the record. 5. An application to seek custody of the child was filed by the petitioner. His evidence was completed on 25th July, 2016. The evidence of the other party was completed on 29th August, 2016. The matter was finally heard. The petitioner submitted written arguments and therein new documents were submitted. It was without application to accept the documents on record after justifying the delay. The petitioner could not show relevance of documents with the issue of the custody as otherwise the child is residing with the respondent since separation of the parties. In view of the above, documents were not allowed to be taken on record. 6. It is no doubt true that Section 14 of the Act of 1955 permits acceptance of documents but cannot be in a routine manner or without application of mind. In view of the above, documents were not allowed to be taken on record. 6. It is no doubt true that Section 14 of the Act of 1955 permits acceptance of documents but cannot be in a routine manner or without application of mind. If justification for non-production of the evidence is given, the documents can be accepted, however, the case in hand is not of such nature. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Family Court refusing to accept the documents submitted by the petitioner after final arguments and even submission of the written arguments. The relevance of the documents has also not been shown thus finding no merit in the writ petition, it is dismissed.