Violence against one's wife was definitely socially frowned upon during the renaissance. Many 16th century books about marriage and/or those listing the duties of householders warn that having to beat your wife is a symptom that you have let things get way out of control. It doesn't make you look good to have to resort to that. They offer all kinds of advice for controlling your wife before it gets to that point, which basically equate to treating her like a child, with firmness, but kindness. As to how common resorting to violence was, I have only ever seen reference to one case where local magistrates got involved and punished a guy for beating his wife, but I saw this totally by accident while looking for something else. If you wanted to look for more of these examples in archives, I'm sure you could find them: all I can say is that it was within the power of local magistrates to punish this behaviour. If you're interested in the titles of some of these books let me know and I can dig through my digital archive.

"We hear," reported the New York Gazette; or, the Weekly Post-Boy in 1752, "that an odd Sect of People have lately appeared" at Elizabethtown, New Jersey, "who go under the Denomination of Regulars." The group numbered "near a Dozen" who "dress themselves in Women's Cloaths, and painting their Faces, go in the Evening to the Houses of such as are reported to have beat their Wives." The group would grab the abuser, "strip him, turn up his Posteriors, and flog him with Rods most severely, crying out all the Time, Wo to the Men that beat their Wives." "It seems" continued the Post Boy's correspondent, "that several Persons in that Borough, (and tis said some very deservedly) have undergone the Discipline, to the no small Terror of others, who are any Way conscious of deserving the same."

From "The King's Three Faces: The Rise and Fall of Royal America 1688-1776" by Brendan McConville

Angela Browne, When Battered Women Kill, 164-65 (1987). Friar Cherubino of Siena, in his Rules of Marriage, operationalized the process by which a husband was to rule his wife, recommending:

�when you see your wife commit an offense, don�t rush at her with insults and violent blows�Scold her sharply, bully and terrify her. And if this still doesn�t work�take up a stick and beat her soundly, for it is better to punish the body and correct the soul than to damage the soul and spare the body�then readily beat her, not in rage but out of charity and concern for her soul, so that the beating will redound to your merit and her good.�

In his extensive commentary on English law, sir William Blackstone explained the powers of authority given to husbands in legal, rather than moralistic, terms. He noted:

�for as [the husband] is to answer for her misbehavior, the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children

Writing a recent essay I came across this evidence for potential widespread domestic abuse in 13th century England:

Women, however, were far more likely to sustain broken forearms, and in particular a distinctive fracture to the ulna. Experts remain divided about the explanation for this, but the injury is a textbook example of a ‘parry-fracture’ caused when an individual raises their arms to defend them self during an attack. Conceivably these breakages were an occupational hazard in an industry that favoured females, but they might paint a bleak picture of a world rife with domestic abuse. Either way, such gender-specific injuries reflect real differences in day-to-day life.

There is nothing conclusive to say these injuries were caused by domestic abuse however.

Source: http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/features/reading-the-bones-spitalfields-human-remains.htm

I'm really curious, does anyone have any information about ancient domestic violence? There doesn't seem to be any information on it although I doubt it would be common but I've seen a few unreliable seeming sources that say otherwise.