Indo-Aryan (Sanskritic/Prakritic) Hindi is Hindi.
Adding Farsi (Iranic) loanwords to pure-Hindi makes it Urdu. The more Farsi loanwords used, the closer the language gets to Urdu and the less Hindi it becomes.
Using Indo-Aryan (sanskritic/prakritic) vocabulary instead of Farsi vocabulary may be less comprehensible for people of Pakistani heritage (or Urdu-speakers in India) but they may perhaps use an Urdu translation rather than a Hindi translation.
My suggestion is to avoid Farsi expressions if possible when translating (or reading) Pali texts to Hindi - simply for the reason that both Sanskrit and Pali vocabulary have etymological connections to Hindi (non-Farsi) vocabulary, and meanings thus flow undistorted for the most part.
About comprehensibility of Hindi & Urdu, i found this example sentence on Quora:
To start off, in certain contexts, Hindi and Urdu can already be pretty unintelligible.
For example, consider the English sentence, “The spokesman for New Age party provided an elaborate explanation for their opposition to the proposals.”
In Hindi, this would translate as, “Nav Yug dal ke prastav-virodh ko unke pravakta ne vistaar se samjhaya.”
In Urdu, “Naya Daur tehreek ki tajveez se mukhalifat ko unke tarjuman ne tafseel se samjhaya.”
All the words in the Hindi sentence originate from Sanskrit or Prakrit. Whereas in the Urdu sentence, the words naya, ki, ko, unke, ne, se and samjhaya (i.e basic verbs and propositions) are from Sanskrit, whereas Daur, siyaasi, tehreek, tajveez, mukhalifat, tarjuman, tafseel (more complex ideas) come from Perso-Arabic.
In Sanskrit & Pali, the above Hindi sentence can perhaps be translated as:
Sanskrit : nava-yuga-pakṣasya pravaktā prastāva-virodhasya vistāra-vyākhyānam akarot
Pali: nava-yuga-pakkhassa pavattā pavāda-virodhassa vitthāra-byākaraṇaṃ akari
When you compare these to the Hindi - you can see how etymologically, syntactically & semantically close the words and sentences are - while the Farsi vocabulary in Urdu would make the translation effectively opaque.