Nagpur: Serious allegations have been levelled against a senior police officer of the Maharashtra Police, accusing him of maintaining a live-in relationship despite being married, fathering a child from the relationship, violating a court order establishing paternity, and committing grave misconduct under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979. The case has triggered concerns over the credibility, ethics, and moral standards within the police force.
The complainant, a woman from Nagpur, has sought stringent departmental action against Senior Police Inspector Arun Mahadev Kshirsagar, currently attached to Lakadganj Police Station, alleging abuse of position, moral turpitude, and contempt of court.
Gold Rate
13 Jan 2026
Six-year live-in relationship, child born, court order ignored
According to the complaint, the officer entered into a live-in relationship with the woman while he was legally married. The relationship allegedly continued for nearly six years, during which the woman and her child were left in a state of mental, social, and financial insecurity.
The woman has claimed that a child was born out of the relationship. After the officer allegedly denied paternity, she was compelled to approach the court. The court, after due proceedings, reportedly passed a clear order establishing paternity. However, the complainant has alleged that despite the judicial order, the officer failed to comply with it, amounting to contempt of court.
Alleged violation of Maharashtra Civil Services Conduct Rules
Legal experts point out that the matter goes beyond a personal dispute and raises serious issues of service discipline.
Under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979, government servants are required to:
• Maintain moral integrity
• Uphold dignity and discipline in public life
• Conduct themselves in a manner befitting their official position
Further, under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (Rule 8), acts such as:
• Maintaining a live-in relationship while married
• Denying the existence of one’s child
• Wilfully disobeying a court order
may constitute grave misconduct and moral turpitude, which can attract penalties ranging up to dismissal from service.
Suspected violation of two-child norm
The complaint also flags a possible violation of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Declaration of Small Family) Rules, 2005.
• Rule 4 mandates compliance with the small family norm
• Rule 6 provides for disqualification and disciplinary action in case of violation
If it is established that the officer concealed the birth of the child while submitting mandatory declarations, it could amount to misrepresentation or suppression of material facts.
The complainant has cited Supreme Court judgments including Javed vs State of Haryana (2003) and Zile Singh vs State of Haryana (2004), which uphold the constitutional validity of the two-child norm, and State of Maharashtra vs Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1991), which stresses the importance of moral conduct for public servants.
Questions over conduct and integrity
According to the complaint, the woman is 17 years younger than the officer, who is stated to be 58 years old. The allegations raise questions over:
• Conduct unbecoming of a police officer
• Possible misuse of position and influence
• Breach of ethical standards expected from a senior officer
Several landmark rulings have underlined the need for high moral standards in the police force, including Union of India vs S.N. Singh (2006), State of Punjab vs Ram Singh (1992), and Commissioner of Police vs Mehar Singh (2013).
Women’s and child rights at stake
The case has also brought women’s and child rights into sharp focus. The complainant has questioned accountability, asking who will safeguard the rights of women and children if law enforcers themselves are accused of violating the law.
The complainant has demanded:
• A departmental inquiry under the 1979 rules
• Strict action for misconduct and contempt of court
• Immediate recognition of the child’s rights, including name, maintenance, and future security
• Adoption of a zero-tolerance policy by the police department in such cases
“This is not a personal allegation, but a question of the moral integrity of the police department,” the complainant stated. “If action is not taken against such officers today, no woman will feel safe tomorrow.”
