The purpose of this study is to comparatively examine the Qur’anic, hadith-based, and jurisprudential evidence concerning the prohibition of prolonging divorce proceedings in Iran and to analyze the extent to which contemporary judicial practice conflicts with Islamic teachings. The main issue is the gap between Sharia’s emphasis on the prompt and fair resolution of family disputes and the prolonged divorce litigation process in courts, which may conflict with the principles of eliminating hardship and distress and prohibiting harm. This research employs a descriptive-analytical method using jurisprudential, exegetical, and legal sources, as well as selected judicial decisions. The findings indicate that Islamic texts emphasize avoiding unnecessary delay in divorce when continuation of marital life is no longer possible or legitimate. In contrast, Iranian judicial practice reveals procedural complexities, multiple stages of litigation, and restrictive interpretations of certain legal institutions that prolong proceedings. In some cases, this situation conflicts with Sharia-based principles emphasizing the prompt removal of hardship and preservation of both parties’ dignity. Finally, legislative and judicial solutions are proposed, including facilitating proof of hardship and distress, reforming mandatory arbitration regulations, and establishing specialized expedited courts.