Let's say that you are ordered by the court to visit me, but each time you visited you could confirm that I was not present. You would have a reasonable argument in court.
Let's say that you are ordered by the court to visit me, but each time you try to visit, I stand on the doorstep and throw large, dangerous rocks at you. In effect, you are kept away.
Do you think your inability to visit would be understood by a knowledgeable judge?
That is not the case here. I could think of dozens of things that could keep a person from entering a house, but she was not removed from him and he did not leave her. Getting slapped or called ugly names or told you cannot have friends over is not the same as packing up and leaving you to pay the bills, raise the kids, and be lonely. And a planned separation so that the situation my improve with prayer and guidance is also not abandonment, even though the couple is not living together.
Myself, I would argue that Biblically, divorce is limited to cases where the marriage covenant has already been broken, either by adultery (explicit in the Biblical text), abandonment (also explicit), and abuse (implicit). I would also posit that, since the idea of a divorced woman living a life of singleness was unworkable in Biblical times - only in recent times could a woman have her own career and be self-supporting - a righteous divorce carried with it the implied right of remarriage.
These are my own opinions, and I believe them to be consistent with the text. However, this is in no way central to the Christian morality regarding divorce. Christianity teaches that divorce is an awful thing, only to be used in the most extreme circumstances. The central question is not what the exceptions are, but what the broad rule is.