Let's remember that what is usually called "church divorce" is in fact permission to remarry.
I do think it would be cruel and to force one spouse to stay with a violent spouse (and btw, there also are cases where women beat men).
However, I am not convinced that in such a case, remarriage must be allowed.
Forgive me, but your posts in this thread sound more or less like Latin objections to Orthodox practice, which, when you break them down, basically amount to "Divorce is a horrible sin, more horrible than anything you might have endured ("allegedly"), and as punishment you can never have sex anymore without automatically incurring more sin because you're just an evil, irredeemable sinner".
If you are framing the matter in terms of obligation--that the Church "must" allow re-marriage in the specific case quoted above--then I would agree. The Church doesn't have to allow it. The Church doesn't have to allow a lot of things, and I've seen my fair share of "the Church" ignoring problems hoping they would just go away rather than require "the Church" to act. But the Church has a responsibility, an obligation, to see to the welfare of her members. That may look different in different places and situations, but the fundamental obligation is the same, and I would argue that, unless "the Church" is willing to take up the herculean task of transforming her faithful into an Acts (2.43-47; 4.32-35) style community, "the Church" may very well have to allow things that are not the ideal in particular in order to ensure the best possible circumstances for the ideal in general.
I have lived in Egypt, so two points
1) In case of divorce or even separation, a woman does not stay unprotected, but returns to her father or closest male relative.
2) Children, according to Egyptian law, belong to their father. In case the parents are divorced or live separately, they may stay with the mother as long as she is breastfeeding and, with the agreement of the father, even after that but at most until they are 11. Then they must definitely come to the father.
PS: If a divorced woman (a Muslim usually, or even a Christian who somehow managed to divorce or get an annulment) remarries, any children who are still living with her must directly be given to the father. That is to prevent them from starting to see their mother's new husband as a father. After all, children belong to the father and adoption is illegal.
I have not lived in Egypt, nor am I Egyptian, so I will not comment on legal particulars. But I am from a culture and community which is more like them than not, and I would argue there is another side to all this: the stigma of marital strife and, if it gets to that level, divorce. Since marriage is not merely between two people, but is a union of families, what happens in a marriage affects more than just the spouses. Do not underestimate the ramifications of this mindset.
In the name of "protecting the family reputation" so that
a) both families as a whole do not look bad
b) the family of either party, whether guilty or innocent, does not look bad
c) the parents of either party do not look bad
d) the married siblings of either party are not made to look bad in the eyes of their spouses, in-laws, etc.
e) the unmarried siblings of either party are not prevented from marrying "good" partners
and a host of similar reasons, families will exert all sorts of pressure to keep a marriage visibly intact at any cost. I am personally familiar with cases in which marriages were entered into hastily and without full freedom, with some level of deception, marriages where emotional, verbal, physical, and sexual abuse has been perpetrated not only once (though that would be enough) but consistently for years, etc. In almost all cases, the "innocent" party is told about how God hates divorce, that God wants him/her to forgive and move on even if the other person doesn't change, that s/he must've provoked this bad behaviour in the other and must endure it, that a "wife's duty" is to be obedient to her husband, even if that means taking the beatings, that St Paul says that spouses aren't to refuse each other so God is pleased when s/he allows the other to have their way with him/her even if it is demeaning, against their will, etc. The family of the "innocent" party will even try to appease the "guilty" party and his/her family in various ways. All of this is for one reason and one reason only: to protect the family reputation. Only in the case of sexual infidelity is there more "acceptance" of divorce, and even in this case, it depends on who is guilty: usually (but not always) families will try to preserve the marriage if the guilty party is the man, but even God won't help if the guilty party is the woman.
In any case, if the problems in a marriage cannot be resolved or at least hidden from public knowledge, and it ends in separation or divorce, speaking about the woman finding protection in her father's house is a joke. Usually that family has exerted enough pressure on the woman that she is simply trading one abusive situation for another and can never look at them or love them the same again. The protecting families look at the divorcee as a burden, even as a traitor, someone who has taken a knife and thrust it into the heart of the family to kill it. In a similar way, this affects men as well (I've tried to be fair because I'm familiar with both cases), but there are cultural factors which make a woman's situation different. The divorcee has a difficult time "going on with life" because of the various social pressures that exist: either they cannot appear in public without inviting criticism, shame, looks, or they are prohibited from participating in family and social activities, many stop coming to church either because the parish situation is such that they will be made to feel like an outcast or the family prevents them from going so that they can at least participate without the stress. Pastoral outreach to these people is abysmally lacking: in most case, they are ignored, and when they are not, they are usually told about how God disapproves of them and will not forgive certain things. In those cases where the clergy are not so bad, the burden will still be on the person to seek out the Church because eventually even the priests will forget about you after they've "done their thing".
I don't know if Egyptian culture is like this, but mine sadly is like this more often than I'd like to admit in these cases (and most "traditional" cultures have their own variations on this theme). "Permission to remarry", in such a situation, is less about "canonical permission to have sex" and more about "allowing someone to live" because the alternative is a form of hellish entombment while alive.
The Church absolutely has a responsibility to these people. It cannot simply wash its hands and say
...divorce in the sense of permission for remarriage was allowed by Jesus Christ only in one case, and that is adultery. I don't think it's "wrong" to do what Christ said.
without having a "plan B" for how to take care of these wounded, hurting people. Or are we to believe that the Incarnate Logos was so annoyed by the idea of sexual infidelity that he allowed a man to divorce his wife for it (but not necessarily the other way around, if we are sticking closely to the words), but did not bother to leave equally clear instructions for those in abusive situations because he just didn't care if women (or men) were abused in other ways?
Marriage is about more than sex, and resurrection is about more than physical resuscitation after death. A Church which places such stock in these things cannot be passive. It must go out to the lost sheep. How best to do that can and ought to be discussed, but it cannot be left at "certain options are impossible, we have no idea what to do, get lost".