In Iranian law, applications for divorce filed by the wife are accepted by the courts only in limited circumstances. One such circumstance is when the continuation of married life becomes so difficult for the wife that it is intolerable, a situation referred to as ‘hardship and distress’ (ʿusr va haraj). Since the law does not specify the conditions under which hardship and distress resulting from physical violence are realized, judicial practice plays a decisive role in clarifying these conditions. The research method adopted in this study is analytical. It examines judicial decisions concerning the establishment or non-establishment of hardship and distress in cases where the wife has relied on allegations of physical assault and battery, and critically evaluates the approach taken by the courts. The main research question is what criteria courts employ to determine hardship and distress arising from physical violence, and whether these criteria are appropriate and fair. The findings support the article’s hypothesis that criteria such as multiple criminal convictions of the husband or the continuity of violence should not be considered necessary conditions for establishing hardship and distress, and therefore should be subject to critique and reform. This is because violence is usually not a random or isolated occurrence, and even a single conviction of the husband for assaulting the wife may indicate a persistent pattern of violent behavior within the marital relationship. In conclusion, it is recommended that the legislator enact specific regulations—particularly with regard to the burden of proof in cases of domestic violence—and facilitate this process for wives. Preventive measures related to divorce, such as continuous education for couples aimed at improving life skills, the provision of appropriate and timely psychological and legal counseling, and the training of judges, should also be prioritized and duly implemented by the relevant institutions.